IC-NI 


SB    53t 


Memorable   American 
Speeches 

II 

Democracy  and  Nationality 


\ 


ILafersifce  Classics 


Memorable   American 
Speeches 

ii 

Democracy  and  Nationality 


COLLECTED  AND  EDITED 
BY 

JOHN  VANCE  CHENEY 


Cfcica0o 
R.  R.  DONNELLEY  &  SONS  COMPANY 

CHRISTMAS,  MCMVI11 


£ 


C  su 

v,  3, 


'  Deface 


THE  present  volume  of  the  Lakeside 
Classics  continues  the  series  of  memor 
able  American  speeches  begun  last  year, 
and  covers  the  first  half-century  of  our  na 
tional  life.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the  purpose 
of  the  Lakeside  Classics  does  not  permit  of 
an  exhaustive  collection  of  American  orations. 
The  field  is  extensive  and  exceedingly  rich, 
but  the  limited  size  of  the  volumes,  and  the 
infrequency  of  their  appearance,  would  make 
an  attempt  at  anything  like  a  complete  collec 
tion  ineffective  and  wearisome.  The  Pub 
lishers  have,  therefore,  contented  themselves 
with  selecting  only  those  speeches  which  stand 
out  in  boldest  relief  on  account  of  their  literary 
merit  or  the  interest  of  their  occasion, — 
speeches  with  which  the  average  man  of  affairs 
will  be  most  desirous  of  becoming  familiar. 

For  the  selecting  of  the  speeches  and  the 
editing  of  this  volume  the  Publishers  have 
again  to  thank  Mr.  John  Vance  Cheney. 

The  original  purpose  of  the  Lakeside  Clas 
sics  has,  to  an  extent,  been  departed  from  in  the 
present  volume.  The  book  still  goes  forth  as 
the  Publishers'  idea  of  the  possibilities  of  mod 
est  but  good  book-making,  produced  by  the 
economical  methods  of  modern  manufacturing. 
5 


'  preface 


Heretofore  its  type-setting,  as  well  as  its 
presswork  and  binding,  has  been  done  by 
machinery.  In  this  volume  the  type-setting 
has  been  done  by  the  apprentices  in  the  School 
for  Apprentices  of  the  Lakeside  Press.  Realiz 
ing  that  the  old-fashioned,  thoroughly  trained 
workman  was  passing  out  of  the  printing  trade 
as  well  as  other  trades,  the  Publishers  have 
established  at  their  Press  a  school  for  the 
training  of  their  own  workmen.  Boys  are 
indentured  upon  graduation  from  grammar 
school  for  a  term  of  seven  years,  and  these 
boys,  along  with  their  factory  work,  spend  a 
substantial  portion  of  each  day  in  the  Appren 
tice  School,  where  they  are  grounded  in  the 
technique  of  their  trade,  under  a  competent 
mechanical  instructor,  and  also  continue  such 
academic  studies  as  will  be  of  assistance  to 
them  in  their  trade  or  will  increase  their  gen 
eral  intelligence.  The  setting  of  this  volume 
is  the  first  commercial  product  of  these  boys; 
every  piece  of  type,  including  the  title-page, 
being  set  by  them  in  the  school  during  the  first 
three  months  of  their  apprenticeship.  The 
Publishers  believe  the  work  gives  great  prom 
ise  that  the  art  of  printing,  under  the  proper 
system  of  training,  may  still  be  maintained  at 
its  old-time  standard. 

THE   PUBLISHERS. 

CHRISTMAS,  1908. 


SINCE  the  publishers  have  found  it  best 
to  cover  the  future  periods  of  American 
history  with  less  detail  than  was  indicat 
ed  in  the  preceding  volume,  the  time  from 
Colonialism  to  the  prolific  period  of  the  Anti- 
Slavery  Agitation,  in  other  words,  the  birth- 
time  of  Democracy  and  Nationality,  is  herein 
delineated  by  but  three  speakers,  treating  sev 
erally  the  proposition  to  increase  the  army, 
the  War  of  1812,  and  Foot's  resolution  on  the 
Public  Lands.  To  these  is  prefixed  Washing 
ton's  Farewell  Address;  an  unparalleled  sum 
mary  of  American  patriotism  and  stateman- 
ship,  "  the  most  famous  and  most  influential 
piece  of  advice  in  the  history  of  our  country." 

While  the  present  selection  necessarily  omits 
important  topics,  such  as  the  British  Treaty, 
the  repeal  of  the  Sedition  Law,  and  the  admis 
sion  of  Louisiana,  it  offers  brilliant  illustra 
tions  of  the  themes  considered;  one  of  them, 
the  Reply  to  Hayne,  considered  by  many  to  be 
the  finest  effort  of  the  Salisbury  giant  of  the 
Senate. 

J.  V.  C. 


Contents 


GEORGE  WASHINGTON  PAGE 

Farewell  Address          .         .  13 

JOHN  RANDOLPH 

On  the  Militia  Bill  .       41 

HENRY  CLAY 

On  the  War  of  1812     .  .       67 

DANIEL  WEBSTER 

The  Reply  to  Hayne     .         .         .107 


Memorable  American  Speeches 


(1732-1799) 

FAREWELL   ADDRESS 

[Published  in  Claypoole's  American  Daily  Adver 
tiser,  September  19,  1796.] 


FRIENDS  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS: 

THE  period  for  a  new  election  of  a  citizen 
to  administer  the  Executive  Government 
of  the  United  States  being  not  far  dis 
tant,  and  the  time  actually  arrived  when  your 
thoughts  must  be  employed  in  designating  the 
person  who  is  to  be  clothed  with  that  important 
trust,  it  appears  to  me  proper,  especially  as  it 
may  conduce  to  a  more  distinct  expression  of 
the  public  voice,  that  I  should  now  apprise 
you  of  the  resolution  I  have  formed  to  decline 
being  considered  among  the  number  of  those 
out  of  whom  a  choice  is  to  be  made. 

I  beg  you  at  the  same  time  to  do  me  the 
justice  to  be  assured  that  this  resolution  has 
not  been  taken  without  a  strict  regard  to  all 
the  considerations  appertaining  to  the  relation 
which  binds  a  dutiful  citizen  to  his  country; 
and  that  in  withdrawing  the  tender  of  service 
which  silence  in  my  situation  might  imply, 
I  am  influenced  by  no  diminution  of  zeal  for 
your  future  interest,  no  deficiency  of  grate 
ful  respect  for  your  past  kindness,  but  am 

13 


American 


supported  by  a  full  conviction  that  the  step 
is  compatible  with  both. 

The  acceptance  of  and  continuance  hither 
to  in  the  office  to  which  your  suffrages  have 
twice  called  me,  have  been  a  uniform  sacrifice 
of  inclination  to  the  opinion  of  duty,  and  to  a 
deference  for  what  appeared  to  be  your  desire. 
I  constantly  hoped  that  it  would  have  been 
much  earlier  in  my  power,  consistently  with 
motives  which  I  was  not  at  liberty  to  disre 
gard,  to  return  to  that  retirement  from  which 
I  had  been  reluctantly  drawn.  The  strength 
of  my  inclination  to  do  this  previous  to  the 
last  election  had  even  led  to  the  preparation  of 
an  address  to  declare  it  to  you;  but  mature  re 
flection  on  the  then  perplexed  and  critical  pos 
ture  of  our  affairs  with  foreign  nations,  and  the 
unanimous  advice  of  persons  entitled  to  my 
confidence,  impelled  me  to  abandon  the  idea. 

I  rejoice  that  the  state  of  your  concerns, 
external  as  well  as  internal,  no  longer  renders 
the  pursuit  of  inclination  incompatible  with 
the  sentiment  of  duty  or  propriety,  and  am 
persuaded,  whatever  partiality  may  be  retained 
for  my  services,  that  in  the  present  circum 
stances  of  our  country  you  will  not  disapprove 
my  determination  to  retire. 

The  impressions  with  which  I  first  undertook 
the  arduous  trust  were  explained  on  the  prop 
er  occasion.  In  the  discharge  of  this  trust, 
I  will  only  say  that  I  have,  with  good  intentions, 
contributed  towards  the  organization  and  ad- 
14 


ministration  of  the  government  the  best  exer 
tions  of  which  a  very  fallible  judgment  was 
capable.  Not  unconscious  in  the  outset  of  the 
inferiority  of  my  qualifications,  experience  in 
my  own  eyes,  perhaps  still  more  in  the  eyes  of 
others,  has  strengthened  the  motives  to  diffi 
dence  of  myself;  and  every  day  the  increasing 
weight  of  years  admonishes  me  more  and  more 
that  the  shade  of  retirement  is  as  necessary 
to  me  as  it  will  be  welcome.  Satisfied  that  if 
any  circumstances  have  given  peculiar  value 
to  my  services  they  were  temporary,  I  have 
the  consolation  to  believe  that  while  choice 
and  prudence  invite  me  to  quit  the  political 
scene,  patriotism  does  not  forbid  it. 

In  looking  foward  to  the  moment  which  is 
intended  to  terminate  the  career  of  my  public 
life,  my  feelings  do  not  permit  me  to  suspend 
the  deep  acknowledgment  of  that  debt  of  grat 
itude  which  I  owe  to  my  beloved  country 
for  the  many  honors  it  has  conferred  upon  me; 
still  more  for  the  steadfast  confidence  with 
which  it  has  supported  me,  and  for  the  oppor 
tunities  I  have  thence  enjoyed  of  manifesting 
my  inviolable  attachment  by  services,  faithful 
and  persevering  though  in  usefulness  unequal 
to  my  zeal.  If  benefits  have  resulted  to  our 
country  from  these  services  let  it  always  be 
remembered  to  your  praise,  and  as  an  instruct 
ive  example  in  our  annals,  that  under  cir 
cumstances  in  which  the  passions,  agitated  in 
every  direction,  were  liable  to  mislead,  amidst 
15 


American 


appearances  sometimes  dubious,  vicissitudes 
of  fortune  often  discouraging,  in  situations  in 
which  not  unfrequently  want  of  success  has 
countenanced  the  spirit  of  criticism,  the  con 
stancy  of  your  support  was  the  essential  prop 
of  the  efforts,  and  a  guarantee  of  the  plans  by 
which  they  were  effected.  Profoundly  pene 
trated  with  this  idea,  I  shall  carry  it  with  me  to 
the  grave  as  a  strong  incitement  to  unceasing 
vows  that  Heaven  may  continue  to  you  the 
choicest  tokens  of  its  beneficence  ;  that  your 
union  and  brotherly  affection  may  be  per 
petual;  that  the  free  constitution  which  is 
the  work  of  your  hands  may  be  sacredly  main 
tained;  that  its  administration  in  every  depart 
ment  may  be  stamped  with  wisdom  and  virtue; 
that,  in  fine,  the  happiness  of  the  people 
of  these  states,  under  the  auspices  of  liberty, 
may  be  made  complete  by  so  careful  a  preser 
vation  and  so  prudent  a  use  of  this  blessing  as 
will  acquire  to  them  the  glory  of  recommend 
ing  it  to  the  applause,  the  affection,  and  adop 
tion  of  every  nation  which  is  yet  a  stranger 
to  it. 

Here,  perhaps,  I  ought  to  stop;  but  a  solici 
tude  for  your  welfare,  which  cannot  end  but 
with  my  life,  and  the  apprehension  of  danger 
natural  to  that  solicitude,  urge  me  on  an  occa 
sion  like  the  present  to  offer  to  your  solemn 
contemplation,  and  to  recommend  to  your  fre 
quent  review,  some  sentiments  which  are  the 
result  of  much  reflection,  of  no  inconsiderable 
16 


George  3®a£fjington 


observation,  and  which  appear  to  me  all-im 
portant  to  the  permanency  of  your  felicity  as 
a  people.  These  will  be  offered  to  you  with 
the  more  freedom  as  you  can  only  see  in  them 
the  disinterested  warnings  of  a  parting  friend, 
who  can  possibly  have  no  personal  motive  to 
bias  his  counsels;  nor  can  I  forget,  as  an  encour 
agement  to  it,  your  indulgent  reception  of  my 
sentiments  on  a  former  and  not  dissimilar 
occasion. 

Interwoven  as  is  the  love  of  liberty  with 
every  ligament  of  your  hearts,  no  recommen 
dation  of  mine  is  necessary  to  fortify  or  confirm 
the  attachment. 

The  unity  of  government,  which  constitutes 
you  one  people,  is  also  now  dear  to  you.  It 
is  justly  so;  for  it  is  a  main  pillar  in  the  edi 
fice  of  your  real  independence;  the  support  of 
your  tranquillity  at  home,  your  peace  abroad, 
of  your  safety,  of  your  prosperity  in  every 
shape,  of  that  very  liberty  which  you  so  high 
ly  prize.  But  as  it  is  easy  to  foresee  that 
from  different  causes  and  from  different  quar 
ters  much  pains  will  be  taken,  many  artifices 
employed,  to  weaken  in  your  minds  the  convic 
tion  of  this  truth;  as  this  is  the  point  in  your 
political  fortress  against  which  the  batteries  of 
internal  and  external  enemies  will  be  most  con 
stantly  and  actively  (though  often  covertly  and 
insidiously)  directed,  it  is  of  infinite  moment 
that  you  should  properly  estimate  the  immense 
value  of  your  national  union  to  your  collective 
17 


American 


and  individual  happiness;  that  you  should 
cherish  a  cordial,  habitual,  and  immovable 
attachment  to  it,  accustoming  yourselves  to 
think  and  speak  of  it  as  of  the  palladium  of 
your  political  safety  and  prosperity  ;  watching 
for  its  preservation  with  jealous  anxiety,  dis 
countenancing  whatever  may  suggest  even  a 
suspicion  that  it  can  in  any  event  be  aban 
doned,  and  indignantly  frowning  upon  the  first 
dawning  of  every  attempt  to  alienate  any 
portion  of  our  country  from  the  rest,  or  to 
enfeeble  the  sacred  ties  which  now  link  to 
gether  the  various  parts. 

For  this  you  have  every  inducement  of  sym 
pathy  and  interest.  Citizens  by  birth  or  choice 
of  a  common  country,  that  country  has  a  right 
to  concentrate  your  affections.  The  name 
of  American,  which  belongs  to  you  in  your 
national  capacity,  must  always  exalt  the  just 
pride  of  patriotism  more  than  any  appellation 
derived  from  local  discriminations.  With 
slight  shades  of  difference  you  have  the  same 
religion,  manners,  habits,  and  political  princi 
ples.  You  have  in  a  common  cause  fought  and 
triumphed  together.  The  independence  and 
liberty  you  possess  are  the  work  of  joint 
counsels,  and  joint  efforts  of  common  dangers, 
sufferings,  and  successes. 

But  these    considerations,  however  power 

fully  they  address  themselves  to  your  sensibili 

ty,  are  greatly  outweighed  by  those  which  apply 

more    immediately   to   your    interest.     Here 

18 


<*0eorge 


every  portion  of  our  country  finds  the  most 
commanding  motives  for  carefully  guarding 
and  preserving  the  union  of  the  whole. 

The  North,  in  an  unrestrained  intercourse 
with  the  South,  protected  by  the  equal  laws 
of  a  common  government,  finds  in  the  pro 
ductions  of  the  latter  great  additional  re 
sources  of  maritime  and  commercial  enterprise, 
and  precious  materials  of  manufacturing  in 
dustry.  The  South,  in  the  same  intercourse, 
benefiting  by  the  agency  of  the  North,  sees  its 
agriculture  grow  and  its  commerce  expand. 
Turning  partly  into  its  own  channels  the  sea 
men  of  the  North,  it  finds  its  particular  navi 
gation  invigorated;  and  while  it  contributes, 
in  different  ways,  to  nourish  and  increase 
the  general  mass  of  the  national  navigation,  it 
looks  forward  to  the  protection  of  a  maritime 
strength  to  which  itself  is  unequally  adapted. 
The  East,  in  a  like  intercourse  with  the  West 
already  finds,  and  in  the  progressive  improve 
ment  of  interior  communications  by  land  and 
water  will  more  and  more  find,  a  valuable 
vent  for  the  commodities  which  it  brings  from 
abroad  or  manufactures  at  home.  The  West 
derives  from  the  East  supplies  requisite  to  its 
growth  and  comfort,  and  what  is  perhaps  of 
still  greater  consequence  it  must  of  necessity 
owe  the  secure  enjoyment  of  indispensable 
outlets  for  its  own  productions  to  the  weight, 
influence,  and  the  future  maritime  strength  of 
the  Atlantic  side  of  the  Union,  directed  by  an 

19 


American 


indissoluble  community  of  interest  as  one 
nation.  Any  other  tenure  by  which  the  West 
can  hold  this  essential  advantage,  whether 
derived  from  its  own  separate  strength  or 
from  an  apostate  and  unnatural  connection 
with  any  foreign  power,  must  be  intrinsically 
precarious. 

While,  then,  every  part  of  our  country  thus 
feels  an  immediate  and  particular  interest  in 
union,  all  the  parts  combined  in  the  united 
mass  of  means  and  efforts  cannot  fail  to  find 
greater  strength,  greater  resource,  proportion- 
ably  greater  security  from  external  danger,  a 
less  frequent  interruption  of  their  peace  by 
foreign  nations;  and,  what  is  of  inestimable 
value,  they  must  derive  from  union  an  ex 
emption  from  those  broils  and  wars  between 
themselves  which  so  frequently  afflict  neigh 
boring  countries  not  tied  together  by  the 
same  governments,  which  their  own  rivalships 
alone  would  be  sufficient  to  produce,  but 
which  opposite  foreign  alliances,  attachments, 
and  intrigues  would  stimulate  and  embitter. 

Hence,  likewise  they  will  avoid  the  necessity 
of  those  overgrown  military  establishments 
which  under  any  form  of  government  are  in 
auspicious  to  liberty,  and  which  are  to  be 
regarded  as  particularly  hostile  to  republican 
liberty.  In  this  sense  it  is  that  your  union 
ought  to  be  considered  as  a  main  prop  of  your 
liberty,  and  that  the  love  of  the  one  ought  to 
endear  to  you  the  preservation  of  the  other. 

20 


Ocorgc  t^agfjingtcm 


These  considerations  speak  a  persuasive 
language  to  every  reflecting  and  virtuous  mind, 
and  exhibit  the  continuance  of  the  Union  as  a 
primary  object  of  patriotic  desire.  Is  there 
a  doubt  whether  a  common  government  can 
embrace  so  large  a  sphere?  Let  experience 
solve  it.  To  listen  to  mere  speculation  in 
such  a  case  were  criminal.  We  are  author 
ized  to  hope  that  a  proper  organization  of  the 
whole,  with  the  auxiliary  agency  of  govern 
ments  for  the  respective  subdivisions,  will 
afford  a  happy  issue  to  the  experiment.  It  is 
well  worth  a  fair  and  full  experiment.  With 
such  powerful  and  obvious  motives  to  union 
affecting  all  parts  of  our  country,  while  ex 
perience  shall  not  have  demonstrated  its  im 
practicability,  there  will  always  be  reason 
to  distrust  the  patriotism  of  those  who  in 
any  quarter  may  endeavor  to  weaken  its 
bands. 

In  contemplating  the  causes  which  may 
disturb  our  union,  it  occurs  as  matter  of  seri 
ous  concern  that  any  ground  should  have 
been  furnished  for  characterizing  parties  by 
geographical  discriminations — Northern  and 
Southern,  Atlantic  and  Western — whence  de 
signing  men  may  endeavor  to  excite  a  belief 
that  there  is  a  real  difference  of  local  interests 
and  views.  One  of  the  expedients  of  party 
to  acquire  influence  within  particular  districts 
is  to  misrepresent  the  opinions  and  aims  of 
other  districts.  You  cannot  shield  yourselves 

21 


American 


too  much  against  the  jealousies  and  heart 
burnings  which  spring  from  these  misrepre 
sentations;  they  tend  to  render  alien  to  each 
other  those  who  ought  to  be  bound  together 
by  fraternal  affection.  The  inhabitants  of 
our  Western  country  have  lately  had  a  useful 
lesson  on  this  head;  they  have  seen  in  the 
negotiation  by  the  executive,  and  in  the  unan 
imous  ratification  by  the  Senate,  of  the  treaty 
with  Spain,  and  in  the  universal  satisfaction 
at  that  event  throughout  the  United  States,  a 
decisive  proof  how  unfounded  were  the  suspi 
cions  propagated  among  them  of  a  policy  in 
the  general  government  and  in  the  Atlantic 
States  unfriendly  to  their  interests  in  regard 
to  the  Mississippi  ;  they  have  been  witnesses  to 
the  formation  of  two  treaties,  that  with  Great 
Britain  and  that  with  Spain  which  secure 
to  them  everything  they  could  desire  in  re 
spect  to  our  foreign  relations  towards  con 
firming  their  prosperity.  Will  it  not  be  their 
wisdom  to  rely  for  the  preservation  of  these 
advantages  on  the  union  by  which  they  were 
procured?  Will  they  not  henceforth  be  deaf 
to  those  advisers,  if  such  there  are,  who  would 
sever  them  from  their  brethren  and  connect 
them  with  aliens  ? 

To  the  efficacy  and  permanency  of  your 
union  a  government  for  the  whole  is  indispen 
sable.  No  alliances,  however  strict,  between 
the  parts  can  be  an  adequate  substitute. 
They  must  inevitably  experience  the  infrac- 

22 


George  t©a£|)ington 


tions  and  interruptions  which  all  alliances  in 
all  times  have  experienced.  Sensible  of  this 
momentous  truth, "you  have  improved  upon 
your  first  essay  by  the  adoption  of  a  consti 
tution  of  government  better  calculated  than 
your  former  for  an  intimate  union,  and  for 
the  efficacious  management  of  your  common 
concerns.  This  government,  the  offspring 
of  our  own  choice,  uninfluenced  and  unawed, 
adopted  upon  full  investigation  and  mature  de 
liberation,  completely  free  in  its  principles,  in 
the  distribution  of  its  powers,  uniting  security 
with  energy,  and  containing  within  itself  a 
provision  for  its  own  amendment,  has  a  just 
claim  to  your  confidence  and  your  support. 
Respect  for  its  authority,  compliance  with  its 
laws,  acquiescence  in  its  measures,  are  duties 
enjoined  by  the  fundamental  maxims  of  true 
liberty.  The  basis  of  our  political  systems 
is  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  and  to  alter 
their  constitutions  of  government.  But  the 
constitution  which  at  any  time  exists,  till 
changed  by  an  explicit  and  authentic  act  of 
the  whole  people,  is  sacredly  obligatory  upon 
all.  The  very  idea  of  the  power  and  the  right 
of  the  people  to  establish  government  presup 
poses  the  duty  of  every  individual  to  obey  the 
established  government. 

All  obstructions  to  the  execution  of  the 
laws,  all  combinations  and  associations,  under 
whatever  plausible  character,  with  the  real  de 
sign  to  direct,  control,  counteract,  or  awe  the 

23  ' 


American 


regular  deliberation  and  action  of  the  consti 
pated  authorities,  are  destructive  of  this  funda- 
menfal  principle.  and_o£  fatal  tendency"  Tney 
serve  to  organize  faction,  to  give  it  an  artifi 
cial  and  extraordinary  force,  lo  put  in  the^ilace 
of  the  olelegated  will  of  the  nation  the_will  of 
a[-  party  -+-  ofteTT  a  small  but  artful  ajjTentgr- 
^jprisingrinnority  of  the  comrnunjty^—  and?  ac 
cording  to  the  alternate  triumphs  of  different 
parties,  to  make  the  public  administratiorU±La 
mirrorof  the  ill-concerted  and 


^ 

projects  '  of  faction  rather  than  the  organ  of 

consistent^  and  wholesome  plans,  digested  by 

common   councils,    and   modified    by    mutual 

interests.      However  combinations  or  associ 

ations  of  the  above  description  may  now  and 

then_answer  popular  ends,  they  are  likely^  in 

tlie  course  of  time  and  things,,  to  become  po 

tent  engines  by  which  cunning,  ambitious,  and 

unprincipled  men  will  be  enabled^to  subvert 

the  power  "of  the  people,  and  to  usurp  for 

\    themselves  the  reins  of  government,  destroying 

^afterwards  the  very  engines  w^jch  have  lifted 

vj^gm  to  unjust  dominion. 

^"Towards  the  preservation  of  your  govern 

ment,   and  the  permanency  of  your  present 

happy  state,  it  is  requisite  not  only  that  you 

steadily  discountenance  irregular  oppositions  to 

its  acknowledged  authority,  but  also  that  you 

resist  with  care  the  spirit  of  innovation  upon 

its  principles,  however  specious  the  pretexts. 

One  method  of  assault  may  be  to  effect  in  the 

24 


<*B>eorge  IDaa'Ijington 


forms  of  the  constitution  alterations  which 
will  impair  the  energy  of  the  system,  and  thus 
to  undermine  what  cannot  be  directly  over 
thrown.  In  all  the  changes  to  which  you  may 
be  invited,  remember  that  time  and  habit  are 
at  least  as  necessary  to  fix  the  true  character 
of  governments  as  of  other  human  institutions; 
that  experience  is  the  surest  standard  by 
which  to  test  the  real  tendency  of  the  exist 
ing  constitution  of  a  country;  that  facility  in 
changes  upon  the  credit  of  mere  hypothesis 
and  opinion  exposes  to  perpetual  change,  from 
the  endless  variety  of  hypothesis  and  opinion; 
and  remember  especially  that  for  the  efficient 
management  of  your  common  interests  in  a 
country  so  extensive  as  ours  a  government  of 
as  much  vigor  as  is  consistent  with  the  perfect 
security  of  liberty  is  indispensable.  Liberty 
itself  will  find  in  such  a  government,  with 
powers  properly  distributed  and  adjusted,  its 
surest  guardian.  It  is  indeed  little  else  than 
a  name  where  the  government  is  too  feeble  to 
withstand  the  enterprises  of  faction  to  confine  ** 
each  member  of  the  society  within  the  limits 
prescribed  by  the  laws,  and  to  maintain  all  in 
the  secure  and  tranquil  enjoyment  of  the  rights 
of  person  and  property. 

I  have  already  intimated  to  you  the  danger 
of  parties  in  the  state,  with  particular  refer 
ence  to  the  founding  of  them  on  geographical 
discriminations.  Let  me  now  take  a  more 
comprehensive  view,  and  warn  you  in  the  most 
25 


American 


solemn  manner  against  the  baneful  effects  of 
tSe*spTnt"of  party  generally. 

/This  spirit,  unfortunately,  is  inseparable 
from  our  natureThaving  its  root  in  the  strong 
est  passions  of  the  human  min£.__Lt_exists 
under  different  shapes  in  all  governments^ 
rnore  or  less  stifled,  controlled,  or  repre"ssec|; 
but  in  those  of  the_rjqpular  form  it  is  seen  in 
its  greatest  rankness.  and  is  truly  their  worst 


le  alternate  domination  of  one  faction  over 
another,  sharpened  by  tne  spirit  ot  "revenge 
natural  to  party  dissension,  which  in  different 
ages  and  countries  has  perpetrated  the  most 
Horrid  enormitiesT  is  itself  a  frightful  cfespot- 
ism.  Jgut_  this  leads  at  length  to  a  more 
formal  and  permanent  despotism.  The  dis- 
orders  and  miseries  which  result  gradually  in 
cline  tne  minds  of  men  to  seek  security  and 
repose  in  the  absolute  power  of  an  individual; 
and  sooner  or  later  the  chief  of  some  prevail 
ing  faction,  more  able  or  more  fortunate  than 
his^  competitors,  turns  this  disposition  to  the 
rjurppses  of  his  own  elevation  on  the  ruins 
oTpuBTiC  libeTfy. — : — """ 
'"'Without  looking  forward  to  an  extremity  of 
this  kind  (which  neverless  ought  not  |o  fre  en 
tirely  out  of  sightX  the  common  and  continual 
mischiefs  of  the  spirit  of  party  are  sufficient 
to  make  it  the?  intpr<ac± — and  duty  of  a  wise 
people  to  discourage  ancj  rpqtnHn  it. 

It  serves  always  to  distract  the  public  coun- 
26 


cils  and  enfeeble  the  public  administration. 
It  agitates  the  commumity  with  ill-founded 
jealousies  and  false  alarms,  kindles  the  animos 
ity  of  one  part  against  another,  foments  occa 
sionally  riot  and  insurrection.  It  opens  the 
door  to  foreign  influence  and  corruption,  which 
find  a  facilitated  access  to  the  government 
itself  through  the  channels  of  party  passions.. 
Thus  the  policy  and  the  will  of  one  country 
are  subjected  to  the  policy  and  will  of  another. 

There  is  an  opinion  that  parties  in  free 
countries  are  useful  checks  upon  the  admin 
istration  of  the  government,  and  serve  to  keep 
alive  the  spirit  of  liberty.  This,  within  cer 
tain  limits,  is  probably  true,  and  in  govern 
ments  of  a  monarchical  cast  patriotism  may 
look  with  indulgence,  if  not  with  favor,  upon 
the  spirit  of  party.  But  in  those  of  the  pop 
ular  character,  in  governments  purely  elective, 
it  is  a  spirit  not  to  be  encouraged.  From 
their  natural  tendency  it  is  certain  there  will 
always  be  enough  of  that  spirit  for  every  sal 
utary  purpose;  and  there  being  constant  dan 
ger  of  excess,  the  effort  ought  to  be,  by  force 
of  public  opinion,  to  mitigate  and  assuage  it. 
A  fire  not  to  be  quenched,  it  demands  a 
uniform  vigilance  to  prevent  its  bursting  into 
a  flame,  lest  instead  of  warming  it  should  con 
sume. 

It  is  important,  likewise,  that  the  habits  of 
thinking  in  a  free  country  should  inspire  cau 
tion  in  those  intrusted  with  its  administration 
27 


American 


to  confine  themselves  within  their  respective 
constitutional  spheres,  avoiding  in  the  exercise 
of  the  powers  of  one  department  to  encroach 
upon  another.  The  spirit  of  encroachment 
tends  to  consolidate  the  powers  of  all  the  de 
partments  in  one,  and  thus  to  create,  whatever 
the  form  of  government,  a  real  despotism. 
A  just  estimate  of  that  love  of  power,  and 
proneness  to  abuse  it  which  predominates  in 
the  human  heart,  is  sufficient  to  satisfy  us  of 
the  truth  of  this  position.  The  necessity  of 
reciprocal  checks  in  the  exercise  of  political 
power  by  dividing  and  distributing  it  into  dif 
ferent  depositories,  and  constituting  each  the 
guardian  of  the  public  weal  against  invasions 
by  the  others,  has  been  evinced  by  experiments 
ancient  and  modern,  some  of  them  in  our 
country,  and  under  our  own  eyes.  To  pre 
serve  them  must  be  as  necessary  as  to  institute 
them.  If  in  the  opinion  of  the  people  the 
distribution  or  modification  of  the  constitu 
tional  powers  be  in  any  particular  wrong,  let  it 
be  corrected  by  an  amendment  in  the  way 
which  the  constitution  designates.  But  let 
there  be  no  change  by  usurpation;  for  though 
this  in  one  instance  may  be  the  instrument  of 
good,  it  is  the  customary  weapon  by  which  free 
governments  are  destroyed.  The  precedent 
must  always  greatly  overbalance  in  permanent 
evil  any  partial  or  transient  benefit  which  the 
use  can  at  any  time  yield. 

Of  all  the  dispositions  and  habits  which  lead 
28 


oBeorge 


to  political  prosperity,  religion  and  morality 
are  indispensable  supports.  In  vain  would 
that  man  claim  the  tribute  of  patriotism  who 
should  labor  to  subvert  these  great  pillars  of 
human  happiness,  these  firmest  props  of  the 
duties  of  men  and  citizens.  The  mere  poli 
tician,  equally  with  the  pious  man,  ought  to 
respect  and  cherish  them.  A  volume  could 
not  trace  all  their  connections  with  private  and 
public  felicity.  Let  it  simply  be  asked  where 
is  the  security  for  property,  for  reputation,  for 
life,  if  the  sense  of  religious  obligation  desert 
the  oaths  which  are  the  instruments  of  in 
vestigation  in  courts  of  justice?  And  let 
us  with  caution  indulge  the  supposition  that 
morality  can  be  maintained  without  religion. 
Whatever  may  be  conceded  to  the  influence 
of  refined  education  on  minds  of  peculiar  struc 
ture,  reason  and  experience  both  forbid  us  to 
expect  that  national  morality  can  prevail  in 
exclusion  of  religious  principle. 

'Tis  substantially  true  that  virtue  or  moral 
ity  is  a  necessary  spring  of  popular  govern 
ment.  The  rule  indeed  extends  with  more  or 
less  force  to  every  species  of  free  govern 
ment.  Who  that  is  a  sincere  friend  to  it  can 
look  with  indifference  upon  attempts  to  shake 
the  foundation  of  the  fabric  ? 

Promote,  then,  as  an  object  of  primary  im 
portance,  institutions  for  the  general  diffusion 
of  knowledge.  In  proportion  as  the  structure 
of  a  government  gives  force  to  public  opinion 
29 


American 


it  is  essential  that  public  opinion  should  be 
enlightened. 

As  a  very  important  source  of  strength  and 
security,  cherish  public  credit.  One  method 
of  preserving  it  is  to  use  it  as  sparingly  as 
possible:  avoiding  occasions  of  expense  by 
cultivating  peace,  but  remembering  also  that 
timely  disbursements  to  prepare  for  danger 
frequently  prevent  much  greater  disburse 
ments  to  repel  it;  avoiding  likewise  the  ac 
cumulation  of  debt,  not  only  by  shunning 
occasions  of  expense,  but  by  vigorous  ex 
ertions  in  time  of  peace  to  discharge  the 
debts  which  unavoidable  wars  may  have  oc 
casioned,  not  ungenerously  throwing  upon 
posterity  the  burden  which  we  ourselves  ought 
to  bear.  The  execution  of  these  maxims 
belongs  to  your  representatives,  but  it  is  neces 
sary  that  public  opinion  should  co-operate.  To 
facilitate  to  them  the  performance  of  their 
duty  it  is  essential  that  you  should  practically 
bear  in  mind  that  towards  the  payments  of 
debts  there  must*  be  revenue;  that  to  have 
revenue  there  must  be  taxes;  that  no  taxes 
can  be  devised  which  are  not  more  or  less 
inconvenient  and  unpleasant;  that  the  intrinsic 
embarrassment  inseparable  from  the  selection 
of  the  proper  objects  (which  is  always  a  choice 
of  difficulties)  ought  to  be  a  decisive  motive 
for  a  candid  construction  of  the  conduct  of  the 
government  in  making  it,  and  for  a  spirit  of 
acquiescence  in  the  measures  for  obtaining 

30 


revenue  which  the  public  exigencies  may 
at  any  time  dictate. 

Observe  good  faith  and  justice  towards  all 
nations.  Cultivate  peace  and  harmony  with 
all.  Religion  and  morality  enjoin  this  con 
duct;  and  can  it  be  that  good  policy  does  not 
equally  enjoin  it?  It  will  be  worthy  of  a  free, 
enlightened,  and  at  no  distant  period  a  great 
nation  to  give  to  mankind  the  magnanimous 
and  too  novel  example  of  a  people  always 
guided  by  an  exalted  justice  and  benevolence. 
Who  can  doubt  that  in  the  course  of  time 
and  things  the  fruits  of  such  a  plan  would 
richly  repay  any  temporary  advantages  which 
might  be  lost  by  a  steady  adherence  to  it? 
Can  it  be  that  Providence  has  not  connected 
the  permanent  felicity  of  a  nation  with  its 
virtue?  The  experiment  at  least  is  recom 
mended  by  every  sentiment  which  ennobles 
human  nature.  Alas,  is  it  rendered  impossi 
ble  by  its  vices ! 

In  the  execution  of  such  a  plan  nothing  is 
more  essential  than  that  permanent,  inveterate 
antipathies  against  particular  nations  and  pas 
sionate  attachments  for  others  should  be 
excluded;  and  that  in  place  of  them  just  and 
amicable  feelings  towards  all  should  be  culti 
vated.  The  nation  which  indulges  towards 
another  an  habitual  hatred  or  an  habitual 
fondness  is  in  some  degree  a  slave.  It  is  a 
slave  to  its  animosity  or  to  its  affection;  either 
of  which  is  sufficient  to  lead  it  astray  from  its 


^lemorafile  American 


duty  and  its  interest.  Antipathy  in  one  nation 
against  another  disposes  each  more  readily  to 
offer  insult  and  injury,  to  lay  hold  of  slight 
causes  of  umbrage,  and  to  be  haughty  and  in 
tractable  when  accidental  or  trifling  occasions 
of  dispute  occur.  Hence  frequent  collisions, 
obstinate,  envenomed,  and  bloody  contests. 
The  nation  prompted  by  ill-will  and  resent 
ment  sometimes  impels  to  war  the  govern 
ment,  contrary  to  the  best  calculations  of 
policy.  The  government  sometimes  partici 
pates  in  the  national  propensity,  and  adopts 
through  passion  what  reason  would  reject;  at 
other  times  it  makes  the  animosity  of  the 
nation  subservient  to  projects  of  hostility  in 
stigated  by  pride,  ambition,  and  other  sinister 
and  pernicious  motives.  The  peace  often, 
sometime  perhaps  the  liberty,  of  nations  has 
been  the  victim. 

So,  likewise,  a  passionate  attachment  of  one 
nation  for  another  produces  a  variety  of  evils. 
Sympathy  for  the  favorite  nation,  facilitating 
the  elusion  of  an  imaginary  common  interest 
in  cases  where  no  real  common  interest  exists, 
and  infusing  into  one  the  enmities  of  the 
other,  betrays  the  former  into  a  participation 
in  the  quarrels  and  wars  of  the  latter,  with 
out  adequate  inducement  or  justification.  It 
leads  also  to  concessions  to  the  favorite  na 
tion  of  privileges  denied  to  others,  which 
is  apt  doubly  to  injure  the  nation  making 
the  concessions  by  unnecessarily  parting  with 
32 


oBeorge 


what  ought  to  have  been  retained,  and  by 
exciting  jealousy,  ill-will,  and  a  disposition 
to  retaliate  in  the  parties  from  whom  equal 
privileges  are  withheld;  and  it  gives  to  am 
bitious,  corrupted,  or  deluded  citizens  who 
devote  themselves  to  the  favorite  nation  fa 
cility  to  betray  or  sacrifice  the  interests  of 
their  own  country,  without  odium,  sometimes 
even  with  popularity,  gilding  with  the  ap 
pearances  of  a  virtuous  sense  of  obligation, 
a  commendable  deference  for  public  opinion, 
or  a  laudable  zeal  for  public  good,  the  base  or 
foolish  compliances  of  ambition,  corruption, 
or  infatuation. 

As  avenues  to  foreign  influence  in  in 
numerable  ways,  such  attachments  are  par 
ticularly  alarming  to  the  truly  enlightened 
and  independent  patriot.  How  many  oppor 
tunities  do  they  afford  to  tamper  with  domestic 
factions,  to  practice  the  arts  of  seduction,  to 
mislead  public  opinion,  to  influence  or  awe 
the  public  councils !  Such  an  attachment  of 
a  small  or  weak  towards  a  great  and  power 
ful  nation  dooms  the  former  to  be  the  satellite 
of  the  latter. 

Against  the  insidious  wiles  of  foreign  in 
fluence,  I  conjure  you  to  believe  me,  fellow- 
citzens,  the  jealousy  of  a  free  people  ought 
to  be  constantly  awake;  since  history  and  ex 
perience  prove  that  foreign  influence  is  one 
of  the  most  baneful  foes  of  republican  govern 
ment.  But  that  jealousy,  to  be  useful,  must 

33 


American 


be  impartial,  else  it  becomes  the  instrument 
of  the  very  influence  to  be  avoided,  instead 
of  a  defense  against  it.  Excessive  partiality 
for  one  foreign  nation,  and  excessive  dislike 
of  another  cause  those  whom  they  actuate  to 
see  danger  only  on  one  side,  and  serve  to  veil 
and  even  second  the  arts  of  influence  on  the 
other.  Real  patriots  who  may  resist  the 
intrigues  of  the  favorite  are  liable  to  become 
suspected  and  odious,  while  its  tools  and  dupes 
usurp  the  applause  and  confidence  of  the  peo 
ple  to  surrender  their  interests. 

The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us,  in  regard 
to  foreign  nations,  is,  in  extending  our  com 
mercial  relations,  to  have  with  them  as  little 
political  connection  as  possible.  So  far  as  we 
have  already  formed  engagements,  let  them 
be  fulfilled  with  perfect  good  faith.  Here 
let  us  stop. 

Europe  has  a  set  of  primary  interests  which 
to  us  have  none  or  a  very  remote  relation. 
Hence  she  must  be  engaged  in  frequent  contro 
versies,  the  causes  of  which  are  essentially 
foreign  to  our  concerns.  Hence,  therefore, 
it  must  be  unwise  in  us  to  implicate  ourselves 
by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of 
her  politics,  or  the  ordinary  combinations  and 
collisions  of  her  friendships  or  enmities. 

Our  detached  and  distant  situation  invites 

and   enables  us  to  pursue  a  different  course. 

If   we  remain  one  people,  under  an  efficient 

government,  the  period  is  not  far  off  when  we 

34 


may  defy  material  injury  from  external  annoy 
ance  ;  when  we  may  take  such  an  attitude  as 
will  cause  the  neutrality  we  may  at  any  time 
resolve  upon  to  be  scrupulously  respected; 
when  belligerent  nations,  under  the  impossi 
bility  of  making  acquisitions  upon  us,  will  not 
lightly  hazard  the  giving  us  provocation  when 
we  may  choose  peace  or  war,  as  our  interest, 
guided  by  our  justice,  shall  counsel. 

Why  forego  the  advantages  of  so  peculiar  a 
situation  ?  Why  quit  our  own  to  stand  upon 
foreign  ground  ?  Why,  by  interweaving  our 
destiny  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe,  en 
tangle  our  peace  and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of 
European  ambition,  rivalship,  interest,  humor, 
or  caprice  ? 

JT  is  our  true  policy  to  steer  clear  of  perma 
nent  alliances  with  any  portion  of  the  foreign 
world,  so  far,  I  mean,  as  we  are  now  at 
liberty  to  do  it;  for  let  me  not  be  understood 
as  capable  of  patronizing  infidelity  to  exist 
ing  engagements.  I  hold  the  maxim  no  less 
applicable  to  public  than  to  private  affairs, 
that  honesty  is  always  the  best  policy.  I  re 
peat  it,  therefore,  let  those  engagements  be 
observed  in  their  genuine  sense;  but  in  my 
opinion  it  is  unnecessary  and  would  be  unwise 
to  extend  them. 

Taking  care  always  to  keep  ourselves,  by 

suitable  establishments,  on  a  respectable  de- 

'ensive  posture,  we  may  safely  trust  to  tempo- 

•ary  alliances  for  extraordinary  emergencies. 

35 


American 


Harmony,  liberal  intercourse  with  all  na 
tions,  are  recommended  by  policy,  humanity, 
and  interest.  But  even  our  commercial  policy 
should  hold  an  equal  and  impartial  hand: 
neither  seeking  nor  granting  exclusive  favors 
or  preferences;  consulting  the  natural  course 
of  things;  diffusing  and  diversifying  by  gen 
tle  means  the  streams  of  commerce,  but  forc 
ing  nothing;  establishing  with  powers  so  dis 
posed  —  in  order  to  give  trade  a  stable  course, 
to  define  the  rights  of  our  merchants,  and 
to  enable  the  government  to  support  them  — 
conventional  rules  of  intercourse,  the  best 
that  present  circumstances  and  mutual  opinion 
will  permit,  but  temporary,  and  liable  to  be 
from  time  to  time  abandoned  or  varied,  as  ex 
perience  and  circumstances  shall  dictate;  con 
stantly  keeping  in  view  that  Jt  is  folly  in  one 
nation  to  look  for  disinterested  favors  from 
another;  that  it  must  pay  with  a  portion  of 
its  independence  for  whatever  it  may  accept 
under  that  character;  that  by  such  accept 
ance  it  may  place  itself  in  the  condition  of 
having  given  equivalents  for  nominal  favors, 
and  yet  of  being  reproached  with  ingratitude 
for  not  giving  more.  There  can  be  no  greater 
error  than  to  expect  or  calculate  upon  real 
favors  from  nation  to  nation.  'T  is  an  illui  ion 
which  experience  must  cure;  which  a  just  pride 
ought  to  discard. 

In  offering  to  you,  my  countrymen,  these 
counsels  of  an  old  and  affectionate  friend,  I 
36 


dare  not  hope  they  will  make  the  strong  and 
lasting  impression  I  could  wish;  that  they 
will  control  the  usual  current  of  the  passions, 
or  prevent  our  nation  from  running  the  course 
which  has  hitherto  marked  the  destiny  of 
nations.  But  if  I  may  even  flatter  myself  that 
they  may  be  productive  of  some  partial  bene 
fit,  some  occasional  good,  that  they  may  now 
and  then  recur  to  moderate  the  fury  of  party 
spirit,  to  warn  against  the  mischiefs  of  foreign 
intrigue,  to  guard  against  the  impostures  of 
pretended  patriotism,  this  hope  will  be  a  full 
recompense  for  the  solicitude  for  your  welfare 
by  which  they  have  been  dictated. 

How  far  in  the  discharge  of  my  official 
duties  I  have  been  guided  by  the  principles 
which  have  been  delineated,  the  public  records 
and  other  evidences  of  my  conduct  must  wit 
ness  to  you  and  to  the  world.  To  myself 
the  assurance  of  my  own  conscience  is  that 
I  have  at  least  believed  myself  to  be  guided 
by  them. 

In  relation  to  the  still  subsisting  war  in 
Europe,  my  proclamation  of  the  22d  of  April, 
1793,  is  the  index  to  my  plan.  Sanctioned 
by  your  approving  voice,  and  by  that  of  your 
representatives  in  both  houses  of  Congress, 
the  spirit  of  that  measure  has  continually  gov 
erned  me,  uninfluenced  by  any  attempts  to 
deter  or  divert  me  from  it. 

After  deliberate  examination  with  the  aid 
of  the  best  lights  I  could  obtain,  I  was  well 
37 


American 


satisfied  that  our  country,  under  all  the  cir 
cumstances  of  the  case,  had  a  right  to  take, 
and  was  bound  in  duty  and  interest  to  take, 
a  neutral  position.  Having  taken  it,  I  de 
termined,  as  far  as  should  depend  upon  me, 
to  maintain  it,  with  moderation,  perseverance, 
and  firmness. 

The  considerations  which  respect  the  right 
to  hold  this  conduct  it  is  not  necessary  on  this 
occasion  to  detail.  I  will  only  observe  that 
according  to  my  understanding  of  the  matter, 
that  right,  so  far  from  being  denied  by  any 
of  the  belligerent  powers,  has  been  virtually 
admitted  by  all. 

The  duty  of  holding  a  neutral  conduct  may 
be  inferred,  without  any  thing  more,  from  the 
obligation  which  justice  and  humanity  impose 
on  every  nation,  in  cases  in  which  it  is  free 
to  act,  to  maintain  inviolate  the  relations  of 
peace  and  amity  towards  other  nations. 

The  inducements  of  interest  for  observing 
that  conduct  will  best  be  referred  to  your  own 
reflections  and  experience.  With  me,  a  pre 
dominant  motive  has  been  to  endeavor  to 
gain  time  to  our  country,  to  settle  and  mature 
its  yet  recent  institutions,  and  to  progress 
without  interruption  to  that  degree  of  strength 
and  consistency  which  is  necessary  to  give  it, 
humanly  speaking,  the  command  of  its  own 
fortunes. 

Though,  in  reviewing  the  incidents  of  my 
administration,  I  am  unconscious  of  intentional 
38 


error,  I  am  nevertheless  too  sensible  of  my 
defects  not  to  think  it  probable  that  I  may 
have  committed  many  errors.  Whatever  they 
may  be,  I  fervently  beseech  the  Almighty  to 
avert  or  mitigate  the  evils  to  which  they  may 
tend.  I  shall  also  carry  with  me  the  hope 
that  my  country  will  never  cease  to  view  them 
with  indulgence ;  and  that,  after  forty-five 
years  of  my  life  dedicated  to  its  service  with 
an  upright  zeal,  the  faults  of  incompetent  abil 
ities  will  be  consigned  to  oblivion,  as  myself 
must  soon  be  to  the  mansions  of  rest. 

Relying  on  its  kindness  in  this  as  in  other 
things,  and  actuated  by  that  fervent  love 
towards  it  which  is  so  natural  to  a  man  who 
views  in  it  the  native  soil  of  himself  and  his 
progenitors  for  several  generations,  I  antici 
pate  with  pleasing  expectation  that  retreat 
in  which  I  promise  myself  to  realize,  without 
alloy,  the  sweet  enjoyment  of  partaking  in  the 
midst  of  my  fellow-citizens  the  benign  influ 
ence  of  good  laws  under  a  free  government, 
— the  ever-favorite  object  of  my  heart,  and 
the  happy  reward,  as  I  trust,  of  our  mutual 
cares,  labors,  and  dangers. 


39 


(1773-1833) 

ON   THE   MILITIA   BILL 

[Delivered  December  10,  1811,    in   the    House   of 
Representatives.] 


MR.  SPEAKER: 

THIS  is  a  question,  as  it  has  been  pre 
sented  to  this  House,  of  peace  or  war. 
In  that  light  it  has  been  argued;  in  no 
other  light  can  I  consider  it,  after  the  declara 
tions  made  by  members  of  the  committee  of 
foreign  relations.  |  Without  intending  any  dis 
respect  to  the  "chair,  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say  that  if  the  decision  yesterday  was  correct, 
"that  it  was  not  in  order  to  advance  any 
arguments  against  the  resolution  drawn  from 
topics  before  other  committees  of  the  House," 
the  whole  debate,  nay,  the  report  itself,  on 
which  we  are  acting,  is  disorderly;  since  the 
increase  of  the  military  force  is  a  subject,  at 
this  time,  in  agitation  by  a  select  committee, 
raised  on  that  branch  of  the  President's  mes 
sage.  But  it  is  impossible  that  the  discussion 
of  a  question,  broad  as  the  wide  ocean  of  our 
foreign  concerns,  involving  every  considera 
tion  of  interest,  of  right,  of  happiness,  and  of 
safety  at  home ;  touching  in  every  point  all 
that  is  dear  to  freemen,  "their  lives,  their  for- 


jmemora&Ie  American 


tunes,  and  their  sacred  honor,"  can  be  tied 
down  by  the  narrow  rules  of  technical  routine. 
The  committee  of  foreign  relations  have 
indeed  decided  that  the  subject  of  arming  the 
militia,  which  has  been  pressed  upon  them  as 
indispensable  to  the  public  security,  does  not 
come  within  the  scope  of  their  authority.  On 
what  ground,  I  have  been  and  still  am  unable 
to  see,  they  have  felt  themselves  authorized  to 
recommend  the  raising  of  standing  armies, 
with  a  view  (as  has  been  declared)  of  imme 
diate  war,  —  a  war,  not  of  defense,  but  of  con 
quest,  of  aggrandizement,  of  ambition,  —  a  war 
foreign  to  the  interests  of  this  country;  to  the 
interests  of  humanity  itself. 
v  I  know  not  how  gentlemen  calling  them 
selves  republicans  can  advocate  such  a  war. 
What  was  their  doctrine  in  1/98-99,  when  the 
command  of  the  army,  that  highest  of  all  pos 
sible  trusts  in  any  government,  be  the  form 
what  it  may,  was  reposed  in  the  bosom  of  the 
father  of  his  country,  —  the  sanctuary  of  a 
nation's  love,  —  the  only  hope  that  never  came 
in  vain  ;  when  other  worthies  of  the  Revolu 
tion  —  Hamilton,  Pinckney,  and  the  younger 
Washington,  men  of  tried  patriotism,  of  ap 
proved  conduct  and  valor,  of  untarnished  hon 
or  —  held  subordinate  command  under  him. 
Republicans  were  then  unwilling  to  trust  a 
standing  army  even  to  his  hands,  who  had 
given  proof  that  he  was  above  all  human  temp 
tation.  ;  Where  now  is  the  Revolutionary  hero 
42 


n  itanfcolpf) 


to  whom  you  are  about  to  confide  this  sacred 
trust?  To  whom  will  you  confide  the  charge 
of  leading  the  flower  of  our  youth  to  the 
heights  of  Abraham  ?  J  Will  you  find  him  in 
the  person  of  an  acquitted  felon  ?  What ! 
Then  you  were  unwilling  to  vote  an  army  where 
such  men  as  have  been  named  held  high  com 
mand  !  When  Washington  himself  was  at  the 
head  did  you  show  such  reluctance,  feel  such 
scruples;  and  are  you  now  nothing  loth,  fear 
less  of  every  consequence  ?  Will  you  say  that 
your  provocations  were  less  then  than  now, 
when  your  direct  commerce  was  interdicted, 
your  ambassadors  hooted  with  derision  from 
the  French  court,  tribute  demanded,  actual  war 
waged  upon  you  ? 

Those  who  opposed  the  army  then  were  in 
deed  denounced  as  the  partisans  of  France,  as 
the  same  men  (some  of  them  at  least)  are  now 
held  up  as  the  advocates  of  England;  those 
firm  and  undeviating  republicans  who  then 
dared,  and  now  dare,  to  cling  to  the  ark  of 
the  Constitution,  to  defend  it  even  at  the  ex 
pense  of  their  fame,  rather  than  surrender 
themselves  to  the  wild  projects  of  mad  ambi 
tion.  There  is  a  fatality  attending  plenitude 
of  power.  Soon  or  late,  some  mania  seizes 
upon  its  possessors;  they  fall  from  the  dizzy 
height  through  giddiness.  Like  a  vast  estate 
heaped  up  by  the  labor  and  industry  of  one 
man  which  seldom  survives  the  third  genera 
tion,  power  gained  by  patient  assiduity,  by  a 

43 


Jftemorairte  American 


faithful  and  regular  discharge  of  its  attendant 
duties,  soon  gets  above  its  own  origin.  Intoxi 
cated  with  their  own  greatness,  the  federal 
party  fell.  Will  not  the  same  causes  produce 
the  same  effects  now  as  then  ?  Sir,  you  may 
raise  this  army,  you  may  build  up  this  vast 
structure  of  patronage,  but  "  lay  not  the  flat 
tering  unction  to  your  souls,"  you  will  never 
live  to  enjoy  the  succession.  You  sign  your 
political  death-warrant. 

[Mr.  Randolph  here  adverted  to  the  provocation  to 
hostilities  from  shutting  up  the  Mississippi  by  Spain 
in  1803  —  •  but  more  fully  to  the  conduct  of  the  House 
in  1805-6,  under  the  strongest  of  all  imaginable  pro 
vocations  to  war,  —  the  actual  invasion  of  our  country. 
He  read  various  passages  from  the  President's  pub 
lic  message  of  December  3,  1805.] 

The  peculiar  situation  of  the  frontier,  at 
that  time  insulted,  alone  induced  the  commit 
tee  to  recommend  the  raising  of  regular  troops. 
It  was  too  remote  from  the  population  of  the 
country  for  the  militia  to  act  in  repelling  and 
chastising  Spanish  incursion.  New  Orleans 
and  its  dependencies  were  separated  by  a  vast 
extent  of  wilderness  from  the  settlements  of 
the  old  United  States;  filled  with  a  disloyal 
and  turbulent  people  alien  to  our  institutions, 
language,  and  manners,  and  disaffected  tow 
ards  our  government.  Little  reliance  could 
be  placed  upon  them,  and  it  was  plain  that  if 
"it  was  the  intention  of  Spain  to  advance  on 
our  possessions  until  she  be  repulsed  by  an 
opposing  force,"  that  force  must  be  a  regu- 
44 


\ar  army,  unless  we  were  disposed  to  abandon 
all  the  country  south  of  Tennessee;  that  "the 
protection  of  our  citizens,  and  the  spirit  and 
the  honor  of  our  country,  required  that  force 
should  be  interposed."  Nothing  remained  but 
for  the  legislature  to  grant  the  only  practicable 
means,  or  to  shrink  from  the  most  sacred  of 
all  its  duties;  to  abandon  the  soil  and  its  in 
habitants  to  the  mercy  of  hostile  invaders. 

Yet  this  report,  moderate  as  it  was,  was 
deemed  of  too  strong  a  character  by  the 
House.  It  was  rejected,  and  at  the  motion 
of  a  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Bid- 
well,  who  has  since  taken  a  great  fancy  also 
to  Canada,  and  marched  off  thither  in  advance 
of  the  committee  of  foreign  relations),  "two 
millions  of  dollars  were  appropriated  towards  " 
(not  in  full  of)  "any  extraordinary  expense 
which  might  be  incurred  in  the  intercourse 
between  the  United  States  and  foreign  na 
tions";  in  other  words,  to  buy  off,  at  Paris, 
Spanish  aggressions  at  home. 

Was  this  fact  given  in  evidence  of  our  im 
partiality  towards  the  belligerents :  that  to 
the  insults  arid  injuries  and  actual  invasion  of 
one  of  them  we  opposed,  not  bullets,  but  dol 
lars?  that  to  Spanish  invasion  we  opposed 
money,  whilst  for  British  aggression  on  the 
high  seas  we  had  arms,  —  offensive  war  ?  But 
Spain  was  then  shielded,  as  well  as  instigated, 
by  a  greater  power.  Hence  our  respect  for 
her.  Had  we  at  that  time  acted  as  we  ought 
45 


American 


to  have  done,  in  defense  of  our  rights,  of  the 
natale  solum  itself,  we  should,  I  feel  con 
fident,  have  avoided  that  series  of  insult,  dis 
grace,  and  injury  which  has  been  poured  out 
upon  us  in  long,  unbroken  succession.  We 
would  not  then  raise  a  small  regular  force  for 
a  country  where  the  militia  could  not  act  to 
defend  our  own  territory;  now  we  are  willing 
to  levy  a  great  army,  for  great  it  must  be  to 
accomplish  the  proposed  object,  for  a  war  of 
conquest  and  ambition;  and  this,  too,  at  the 
very  entrance  of  the  "northern  hive,"  of  the 
strongest  part  of  the  Union. 

An  insinuation  has  fallen  from  the  gentle 
man  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Grundy],  that  the 
late  massacre  of  our  brethren  on  the  Wabash 
was  instigated  by  the  British  government. 
Has  the  President  given  any  such  information  ? 
Is  it  so  believed  by  the  administration  ?  I  have 
cause  to  believe  the  contrary  to  be  the  fact; 
that  such  is  not  their  opinion.  This  insin 
uation  is  of  the  grossest  kind,  —  a  presumption 
the  most  rash;  the  most  unjustifiable.  Show 
but  good  ground  for  it,  I  will  give  up  the 
question  at  the  threshold.  I  will  be  ready  to 
march  to  Canada.  It  is,  indeed,  well  calculated 
to  excite  the  feelings  of  the  western  people 
particularly,  who  are  not  quite  so  tenderly 
attached  to  our  red  brethren  as  some  of  our 
modern  philosophers;  but  it  is  destitute  of  any 
foundation,  beyond  mere  surmise  and  suspicion. 
What  would  be  thought,  if,  without  any  proof 
46 


whatsoever,  a  member  should  rise  in  his  place 
and  tell  us  that  the  massacre  in  Savannah — a 
massacre  perpetrated  by  civilized  savages  with 
French  commissions  in  their  pockets  —  was 
excited  by  the  French  government  ?  There  is 
an  easy  and  natural  solution  of  the  late  trans 
action  on  the  Wabash,  in  the  well-known 
character  of  the  aboriginal  savage  of  North 
America,  without  resorting  to  any  such  mere 
conjectural  estimate.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that, 
for  this  signal  calamity  and  disgrace,  the 
House  is,  in  part  at  least,  answerable.  Session 
after  session,  our  table  has  been  piled  up 
with  Indian  treaties,  for  which  the  appropria 
tions  have  been  voted  as  a  matter  of  course, 
without  examination.  Advantage  has  been 
taken  of  the  spirit  of  the  Indians,  broken  by 
the  war  which  ended  in  the  treaty  of  Grenville. 
Under  the  ascendency  then  acquired  over 
them,  they  have  been  pent  up  by  subsequent 
treaties,  into  nooks;  straitened  in  their 
quarters  by  a  blind  cupidity,  seeking  to  ex 
tinguish  their  title  to  immense  wildernesses, — 
for  which  (possessing,  as  we  do  already,  more 
land  than  we  can  sell  or  use)  we  shall  not 
have  occasion  for  half  a  century  to  come. 
It  is  our  own  thirst  for  territory,  our  own  want 
of  moderation,  that  has  driven  these  sons  of 
nature  to  desperation,  of  which  we  feel  the 
effects. 

Although  not  personally  acquainted  with  the 
late  Colonel  Daveiss,  I  feel,  I  am  persuaded,  as 
47 


jftemora&le  American 


deep  and  serious  regret  for  his  loss  as  the 
gentleman  from  Tennessee  himself.  I  know 
him  only  through  the  representation  of  a  friend 
of  the  deceased  [Mr.  Rowan],  some  time  a 
member  of  this  House  ,  a  man  who,  for  native 
force  of  intellect,  manliness  of  character,  and 
high  sense  of  honor,  is  not  inferior  to  any  that 
have  ever  sat  here.  With  him  I  sympathize 
in  the  severest  calamity  that  could  befall  a  man 
of  his  cast  and  character.  Would  to  God  they 
were  both  now  on  this  floor.  From-  my  per 
sonal  knowledge  of  the  one,  I  feel  confident 
that  I  should  have  his  support  ,  and  I  believe 
(judging  of  him  from  the  representation  of 
our  common  friend)  of  the  other  also. 

I  cannot  refrain  from  smiling  at  the  liberal 
ity  of  the  gentleman  in  giving  Canada  to  New 
York,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  northern  bal 
ance  of  power;  while,  at  the  same  time,  he 
forewarns  her  that  the  western  scale  must 
preponderate.  I  can  almost  fancy  that  I  see 
the  capitol  in  motion  towards  the  falls  of 
Ohio;  after  a  short  sojourn,  taking  its  flight 
to  the  Mississippi,  and  finally  alighting  on 
Darien;  which,  when  the  gentleman's  dreams 
are  realized,  will  be  a  most  eligible  seat  of 
government  for  the  new  republic  (or  empire) 
of  the  two  Americas  !  But  it  seems  that  "in 
1808  we  talked  and  acted  foolishly,"  and  to 
give  some  color  of  consistency  to  that  folly, 
we  must  now  commit  a  greater.  Really,  I 
cannot  conceive  of  a  weaker  reason  offered 
48 


in  support  of  a  present  measure  than  the  jus 
tification  of  a  former  folly.  I  hope  we  shall 
act  a  wise  part;  take  warning  by  our  follies, 
since  we  have  become  sensible  of  them,  and  re 
solve  to  talk  and  act  foolishly  no  more.  It 
is,  indeed,  high  time  to  give  over  such  pre 
posterous  language  and  proceedings. 

This  war  of  conquest,  a  war  for  the  acqui 
sition  of  territory  and  subjects,  is  to  be  a 
new  commentary  on  the  doctrine  that  repub 
licans  are  destitute  of  ambition;  that  they  are 
addicted  to  peace,  wedded  to  the  happiness 
and  safety  of  the  great  body  of  their  people. 
But  it  seems  this  is  to  be  a  holiday  campaign; 
there  is  to  be  no  expense  of  blood  or  treasure 
on  our  part;  Canada  is  to  conquer  herself; 
she  is  to  be  subdued  by  the  principles  of  fra 
ternity  !  The  people  of  that  country  are  first 
to  be  seduced  from  their  allegiance  and  con 
verted  into  traitors,  as  preparatory  to  making 
them  good  citizens !  J  Although  I  must  ac 
knowledge  that  some  of  our  flaming  patriots 
were  thus  manufactured,  I  do  not  think  the 
process  would  hold  good  with  a  whole  com 
munity.  It  is  a  dangerous  experiment.  We 
are  to  succeed  in  the  French  mode,  by  the 
system  of  fraternization, —  all  is  French!  But 
how  dreadfully  it  might  be  retorted  on  the 
southern  and  western  slave-holding  States.  I 
detest  this  subordination  of  treason.  I  No;  if 
we  must  have  them,  let  them  fall  by  the 
valor  of  our  arms;  by  fair  legitimate  con- 
49 


American 


quest  ;  not  become  the  victims  of  treacherous 
seduction.  ; 

I  am  not  surprised  at  the  war  spirit  which 
is  manifesting  itself  in  gentlemen  from  the 
South.  In  the  year  1805-6,  in  a  struggle 
for  the  carrying  trade  of  belligerent-  colo 
nial  produce,  this  country  was  most  un 
wisely  brought  into  collision  with  the  great 
powers  of  Europe.  By  a  series  of  most 
impolitic  and  ruinous  measures,  utterly  incom 
prehensible  to  every  rational,  sober-minded 
man,  the  southern  planters,  by  their  own  votes, 
have  succeeded  in  knocking  down  the  price  of 
cotton  to  seven  cents,  and  of  tobacco  (a  few 
choice  crops  excepted)  to  nothing;  and  in 
raising  the  price  of  blankets  (of  which  a  few 
would  not  be  amiss  in  a  Canadian  campaign), 
coarse  woolens,  and  every  article  of  first  ne 
cessity,  three  or  four  hundred  per  centum. 
And  now  that,  by  our  own  acts,  we  have 
brought  ourselves  into  this  unprecedented 
condition,  we  must  get  out  of  it  in  any  way 
but  by  an  acknowledgment  of  our  own  want 
of  wisdom  and  forecast.  But  is  war  the 
true  remedy? 

Who  will  profit  by  it  ?  Speculators;  a  few 
lucky  merchants  who  draw  prizes  in  the  lot 
tery;  commissaries  and  contractors.  Who  must 
suffer  by  it?  The  people.  It  is  their  blood, 
their  taxes,  that  must  flow  to  support  it. 

But  gentlemen  avowed  that  they  would  not 
go  to  war  for  the  carrying  trade;  that  is,  for 
50 


any  other  but  the  direct  export  and  import 
trade;  that  which  carries  our  native  products 
abroad,  and  brings  back  the  return  cargo ;  and 
yet  they  stickle  for  our  commercial  rights,  and 
will  go  to  war  for  them !  I  wish  to  know,  in 
point  of  principle,  what  difference  gentlemen 
can  point  out  between  the  abandonment  of 
this  or  of  that  maritime  right  ?  Do  gentlemen 
assume  the  lofty  port  and  tone  of  chivalrous 
redressers  of  maritime  wrongs,  and  declare 
their  readiness  to  surrender  every  other  mar 
itime  right,  provided  they  may  remain  unmo 
lested  in  the  exercise  of  the  humble  privilege 
of  carrying  their  own  produce  abroad,  and 
bringing  back  a  return  cargo  ?  Do  you  make 
this  declaration  to  the  enemy  at  the  outset? 
Do  you  state  the  minimum  with  which  you 
will  be  contented,  and  put  it  in  their  power  to 
close  with  your  proposals  at  their  option;  give 
her  the  basis  of  a  treaty  ruinous  and  disgrace 
ful  beyond  example  and  expression  ?  And  this, 
too,  after  having  turned  up  your  noses  in 
disdain  at  the  treaties  of  Mr.  Jay  and  Mr. 
Monroe  !  Will  you  say  to  England,  ' '  End  the 
war  when  you  please,  give  us  the  direct  trade 
in  our  own  produce,  we  are  content  ? "  But 
what  will  the  merchants  of  Salem,  and  Boston, 
and  New  York,  and  Philadelphia,  and  Balti 
more,  the  men  of  Marblehead  and  Cape  Cod, 
say  to  this  ?  Will  they  join  in  a  war  professing 
to  have  for  its  object  what  they  would  con 
sider  (and  justly,  too)  as  the  sacrifice  of  their 


American 


maritime  rights,  yet  affecting  to  be  a  war  for 
the  protection  of  commerce  ? 

I  am  gratified  to  find  gentlemen  acknowl 
edging  the  demoralizing  and  destructive  conse 
quences  of  the  non-importation  law;  confessing 
the  truth  of  all  that  its  opponents  foretold 
when  it  was  enacted.  And  will  you  plunge 
yourselves  in  war  because  you  have  passed 
a  foolish  and  ruinous  law  and  are  ashamed  to 
repeal  it  ?  "  But  our  good  friend,  the  French 
emperor,  stands  in  the  way  of  its  repeal,  and 
as  we  cannot  go  too  far  in  making  sacrifices 
to  him  who  has  given  such  demonstration  of 
his  love  for  the  Americans,  we  must,  in  point 
of  fact,  become  parties  to  his  war.  Who  can 
be  so  cruel  as  to  refuse  him  that  favor  ?  "  My 
imagination  shrinks  from  the  miseries  of  such 
a  connection.  I  call  upon  the  House  to  reflect 
whether  they  are  not  about  to  abandon  all  rec 
lamation  for  the  unparalleled  outrages,  "in 
sults,  and  injuries"  of  the  French  government, 
to  give  up  our  claim  for  plundered  millions; 
and  I  ask  what  reparation  or  atonement  they 
can  expect  to  obtain  in  hours  of  future  dalli 
ance,  after  they  shall  have  made  a  tender  of 
their  person  to  this  gi^eat  deflowerer  of  the 
virginity  of  republics  ?  We  have  by  our  own 
wise  (I  will  not  say  wiseacre)  measures  so 
increased  the  trade  and  wealth  of  Montreal 
and  Quebec  that  at  last  we  begin  to  cast  a 
wishful  eye  at  Canada.  Having  done  so  much 
towards  its  improvement,  by  the  exercise  of 
52 


"our  restrictive  energies,"  we  begin  to  think 
the  laborer  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  to  put  in 
claim  for  our  portion.  Suppose  it  ours,  are 
we  any  nearer  to  our  point  ?  As  his  minister 
said  to  the  king  of  Epirus,  "  May  we  not  as 
well  take  our  bottle  of  wine  before  as  after 
this  exploit?"  Go!  march  to  Canada!  leave 
the  broad  bosom  of  the  Chesapeake  and  her 
hundred  tributary  rivers,  the  whole  line  of 
seacoast  from  Machias  to  St.  Mary's  unpro 
tected  !  You  have  taken  Quebec ;  have  you 
conquered  England  ?  Will  you  seek  for  the 
deep  foundations  of  her  power  in  the  frozen 
deserts  of  Labrador  ? 

"  Her  march  is  on  the  mountain  wave, 
Her  home  is  on  the  deep!  " 

Will  you  call  upon  her  to  leave  your  ports 
and  harbors  untouched  only  just  till  you  can 
return  from  Canada  to  defend  them?  The 
coast  is  to  be  left  defenseless  whilst  men  of 
the  interior  are  reveling  in  conquest  and  spoil. 
But  grant  for  a  moment,  for  mere  argument's 
sake,  that  in  Canada  you  touched  the  sinews 
of  her  strength  instead  of  removing  a  clog 
upon  her  resources,  —  an  incumbrance,  but  one 
which,  from  a  spirit  of  honor,  she  will  vigor 
ously  defend.  In  what  situation  would  you 
then  place  some  of  the  best  men  of  the  nation  ? 
As  Chatham  and  Burke,  and  the  whole  band 
of  her  patriots,  prayed  for  her  defeat  in  1776, 
so  must  some  of  the  truest  friends  of  their 
country  deprecate  the  success  of  our  arms 

53 


;jttemora&le  American 


against  the  only  power  that  holds  in  check  the 
arch-enemy  of  mankind. 

The  committee  have  outstripped  the  execu 
tive.  In  designating  the  power  against  whom 
this  force  is  to  be  employed,  as  has  most  unad 
visedly  been  done  in  the  preamble  or  manifesto 
with  which  the  resolutions  are  prefaced,  they 
have  not  consulted  the  views  of  the  executive, 
that  designation  is  equivalent  to  an  abandon 
ment  of  all  our  claims  on  the  French  govern 
ment.  No  sooner  was  the  report  laid  on  the 
table  than  the  vultures  were  flocking  round 
their  prey,  —  the  carcass  of  a  great  military 
establishment.  Men  of  tainted  reputation,  of 
broken  fortune  (if  they  ever  had  any),  and 
of  battered  constitutions,  "choice  spirits  tired  of 
the  dull  pursuits  of  civil  life,"  were  seeking 
after  agencies  and  commissions,  willing  to  doze 
in  gross  stupidity  over  the  public  fire;  to  light 
the  public  candle  at  both  ends.  Honorable 
men  undoubtedly  there  are,  ready  to  serve 
their  country  ;  but  what  man  of  spirit,  or  of 
self-respect,  will  accept  a  commission  in  the 
present  army  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Tennessee  [Mr.  Grun- 
dy]  addressed  himself  yesterday  exclusively 
to  the  "republicans  of  the  House."  I  know 
not  whether  I  may  consider  myself  as  entitled 
to  any  part  of  the  benefit  of  the  honorable 
gentleman's  discourse.  It  belongs  not,  how 
ever,  to  that  gentleman  to  decide.  If  we 
must  have  an  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of 
54 


republicanism,  I  shall  receive  it  from  the 
fathers  of  the  church,  and  not  from  the  junior 
apprentices  of  the  law.  I  shall  appeal  to  my 
worthy  friends  from  Carolina  [Messrs.  Macon 
and  Stanford]  "men  with  whom  I  have  meas 
ured  my  strength, "  by  whose  side  I  have 
fought  during  the  reign  of  terror;  for  it  was 
indeed  an  hour  of  corruption,  of  oppression, 
of  pollution.  It  is  not  at  all  to  my  taste  — 
that  sort  of  republicanism  which  was  support 
ed,  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  by  the  father 
of  the  sedition  law,  John  Adams,  and  by  Peter 
Porcupine  on  the  other.  Republicanism  !  of 
John  Adams  and  William  Cobbett !  Par  no- 
bile  fratrum,  now  united  as  in  1/98,  whom 
the  cruel  walls  of  Newgate  alone  keep  from 
flying  to  each  other's  embrace,  but  whom,  in 
sentiment,  it  is  impossible  to  divide.  Gallant 
crusaders  in  the  holy  cause  of  republicanism ! 
Such  "republicanism  does,  indeed,  mean  any 
thing  or  nothing." 

Our  people  will  not  submit  to  be  taxed  for 
this  war  of  conquest  and  dominion.  The  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States  was  not  calcu 
lated  to  wage  offensive  foreign  war;  it  was 
instituted  for  the  common  defense  and  general 
welfare;  and  whosoever  should  embark  it  in  a 
war  of  offense  would  put  it  to  a  test  which  it 
is  by  no  means  calculated  to  endure.)  Make 
it  out  that  Great  Britian  has  instigated  the 
Indians  on  a  late  occasion,  and  I  am  ready  for 
battle;  but  not  for  dominion.  I  am  unwilling, 

55 


American 


however,  under  present  circumstances,  to  take 
Canada,  at  the  risk  of  the  Constitution,  to  em 
bark  in  a  common  cause  with  France,  and  be 
dragged  at  the  wheels  of  the  car  of  some 
Burr  or  Bonaparte.  For  a  gentleman  from 
Tennessee,  or  Genesee,  or  Lake  Champlain, 
there  may  be  some  prospect  of  advantage. 
Their  hemp  would  bear  a  great  price  by  the 
exclusion  of  foreign  supply.  In  that,  too,  the 
great  importers  are  deeply  interested.  The 
upper  country  on  the  Hudson  and  the  lakes 
would  be  enriched  by  the  supplies  for  the 
troops,  which  they  alone  could  furnish.  They 
would  have  the  exclusive  market,  to  say  noth 
ing  of  the  increased  preponderance  from  the 
acquisition  of  Canada  and  that  section  of  the 
Union  which  the  Southern  and  Western  States 
have  already  felt  so  severely  in  the  apportion 
ment  bill. 

[Mr.  Randolph  adverted  to  the  defenseless  state 
of  the  seaports,  and  particularly  of  the  Chesapeake. 
A  single  spot  only  on  both  shores  might  be  consid 
ered  in  tolerable  security,  —  from  the  nature  of  the 
port  and  the  strength  of  the  population,  —  and  that 
spot  unhappily  governed  the  whole  state  of  Maryland. 
His  friend,  the  late  Governor  of  Maryland  (Mr. 
Lloyd),  at  the  very  time  he  was  bringing  his  warlike 
resolutions  before  the  legislature  of  the  state,  was 
liable,  on  any  night,  to  be  taken  out  of  his  bed,  and 
carried  off  with  his  family,  by  the  most  contemptible 
picaroon.  Such  was  the  situation  of  many  a  family 
in  Maryland  and  lower  Virginia.] 

Permit  me  now,  sir,  to  call  your  attention 
to  the  subject  of  our  black  population.     I  will 
56 


JSanfcolpfj 


touch  this  subject  as  tenderly  as  possible.  It 
is  with  reluctance  that  I  touch  it  at  all;  but  in 
cases  of  great  emergency,  the  state  physician 
must  not  be  deterred  by  a  sickly,  hysterical 
humanity  from  probing  the  wound  of  his  pa 
tient;  he  must  not  be  withheld  by  a  fastidi 
ous  and  mistaken  delicacy  from  representing 
his  true  situation  to  his  friends,  or  even  to  the 
sick  man  himself,  when  the  occasion  calls  for 
it.  What  is  the  situation  of  the  slave-holding 
States  ?  During  the  war  of  the  Revolution, 
so  fixed  were  their  habits  of  subordination, 
that  while  the  whole  country  was  overrun  by 
the  enemy,  who  invited  them  to  desert,  no  fear 
was  ever  entertained  of  an  insurrection  of  the 
slaves.  During  a  war  of  seven  years,  with  our 
country  in  possession  of  the  enemy,  no  such 
danger  was  ever  apprehended.  But  should  we, 
therefore,  be  unobservant  spectators  of  the 
progress  of  society  within  the  last  twenty 
years ;  of  the  silent  but  powerful  change 
wrought,  by  time  and  chance,  upon  its  compo 
sition  and  temper?  When  the  fountains  of 
the  great  deep  of  abomination  were  broken  up, 
even  the  poor  slaves  did  not  escape  the  gen 
eral  deluge.  The  French  revolution  has  pol 
luted  even  them.  Nay,  there  have  not  been 
wanting  men  in  this  House — witness  our  legis 
lative  Legendre,  the  butcher  who  once  held  a 
seat  here — to  preach  upon  this  floor  these  im 
prescriptible  rights  to  a  crowded  audience  of 
blacks  in  the  galleries ;  teaching  them  that  they 
57 


American 


are  equal  to  their  masters;  in  other  words,  ad 
vising  them  to  cut  their  throats.  Similar  doc 
trines  have  been  disseminated  by  peddlers  from 
New  England  and  elsewhere,  throughout  the 
Southern  country;  and  masters  have  been  found 
so  infatuated,  as  by  their  lives  and  conversa 
tion  by  a  general  contempt  of  order,  morality, 
and  religion,  unthinkingly  to  cherish  these  seeds 
of  self-destruction  to  them  and  their  families. 
What  has  been  the  consequence  ?  Within  the 
last  ten  years,  repeated  alarms  of  insurrection 
among  the  slaves,  some  of  them  awful  indeed. 
From  the  spreading  of  this  infernal  doctrine, 
the  whole  Southern  country  has  been  thrown 
into  a  state  of  insecurity.  Men  dead  to  the 
operation  of  moral  causes  have  taken  away 
from  the  poor  slave  his  habits  of  loyalty  and 
obedience  to  his  master,  which  lightened  his 
servitude  by  a  double  operation;  beguiling  his 
own  cares  and  disarming  his  master's  suspi 
cions  and  severity;  and  now,  like  true  empi 
rics  in  politics,  you  are  called  upon  to  trust  to 
the  mere  physical  strength  of  the  fetter  which 
holds  him  in  bondage.  You  have  deprived 
him  of  all  moral  restraint;  you  have  tempt 
ed  him  to  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowl 
edge,  just  enough  to  perfect  him  in  wickednes; 
you  have  opened  his  eyes  to  his  nakedness; 
you  have  armed  his  nature  against  the  hand 
that  has  fed,  that  has  clothed  him,  that  has 
cherished  him  in  sickness;  that  hand  which, 
before  he  became  a  pupil  of  your  school,  he 
58 


had  been  accustomed  to  press  with  respectful 
affection.  You  have  done  all  this — and  then 
show  him  the  gibbet  and  the  wheel,  as  incen 
tives  to  a  sullen,  repugnant  obedience.  God 
forbid,  sir,  that  the  Southern  States  should 
ever  see  an  enemy  on  their  shores  with  these 
infernal  principles  of  French  fraternity  in  the 
van.  While  talking  of  taking  Canada,  some  of 
us  are  shuddering  for  our  own  safety  at  home. 
I  speak  from  facts,  when  I  say  that  the  night- 
bell  never  tolls  for  fire  in  Richmond  that  the 
mother  does  not  hug  her  infant  more  closely 
to  her  bosom.  I  have  been  a  witness  of  some 
of  the  alarms  in  the  capital  of  Virginia. 

How  have  we  shown  our  sympathy  with  the 
patriots  of  Spain,  or  with  the  American  prov 
inces  ?  By  seizing  on  one  of  them,  her  claim 
to  which  we  had  formerly  respected,  as  soon 
as  the  parent  country  was  embroiled  at  home. 
Is  it  thus  we  yield  them  assistance  against  the 
arch-fiend  who  is  grasping  at  the  scepter  of 
the  civilized  world  ?  The  object  of  France  is 
as  much  Spanish-American  as  old  Spain  her 
self.  Much  as  I  hate  a  standing  army,  I  could 
almost  find  it  in  my  heart  to  vote  one  could 
it  be  sent  to  the  assistance  of  the  Spanish 
patriots. 

[Mr.  Randolph  then  proceeded  to  notice  the  un 
just  and  illiberal  imputation  of  British  attachments 
against  certain  characters  in  this  country,  sometimes 
insinuated  in  that  House,  but  openly  avowed  out 
of  it.] 

59 


j^lemorafile  American 


Against  whom  are  these  charges  brought  ? 
Against  men  who,  in  the  war  of  the  Revolu*- 
tion,  were  in  the  councils  of  the  nation  or 
fighting  the  battles  of  your  country.  And  by 
whom  are  they  made?  By  runaways,  chiefly 
from  the  British  dominions,  since  the  breaking 
out  of  the  French  troubles.  It  is  insufferable. 
It  cannot  be  borne.  It  must  and  ought,  with 
severity  to  be  put  down  in  this  House;  and 
out  of  it  to  meet  the  lie  direct.  We  have  no 
fellow-feeling  for  the  suffering  and  oppressed 
Spaniards!  Yet  even  them  we  do  not  rep 
robate.  Strange  that  we  should  have  no 
objection  to  any  other  people  or  government, 
civilized  or  savage,  in  the  whole  world  !  The 
great  autocrat  of  all  the  Russias  receives  the 
homage  of  our  high  consideration.  The  Dey 
of  Algiers  and  his  divan  of  pirates  are  a  very 
civil,  good  sort  of  people,  with  whom  we  find 
no  difficulty  in  maintaining  the  relations  of 
peace  and  amity.  "Turks,  Jews,  and  Infidels," 
Melimelli  or  the  Little  Turtle,  barbarians  and 
savages  of  every  clime  and  color,  are  welcome 
to  our  arms.  With  chiefs  of  banditti,  negro, 
or  mulatto,  we  can  treat  and  can  trade.  Name, 
however,  but  England,  and  all  our  antipathies 
are  up  in  arms  against  her.  Against  whom  ? 
Against  those  whose  blood  runs  in  our  veins 
in  common  with  whom  we  claim  Shakespeare, 
and  Newton,  and  Chatham,  for  our  country 
men;  whose  form  of  government  is  the 
freest  on  earth,  our  own  only  excepted;  from 
60 


whom  every  valuable  principle  of  our  own 
institutions  has  been  borrowed  —  representa 
tion,  jury  trial,  voting  the  supplies,  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  our  whole  civil  and  criminal 
jurisprudence;  against  our  fellow-Protestants, 
identified  in  blood,  in  language,  in  religion, 
with  ourselves.  In  what  school  did  the  wor 
thies  of  our  land,  the  Washingtons,  Henrys, 
Hancocks,  Franklins,  Rutledges  of  America, 
learn  those  principles  of  civil  liberty  which 
were  so  nobly  asserted  by  their  wisdom  and 
valor?  American  resistance  to  British  usur 
pation  has  not  been  more  warmly  cherished 
by  these  great  men  and  their  compatriots; 
not  more  by  Washington,  Hancock,  and  Hen 
ry  than  by  Chatham  and  his  illustrious  asso 
ciates  in  the  British  Parliament.  It  ought  to 
be  remembered,  too,  that  the  heart  of  the 
English  people  was  with  us.  It  was  a  selfish 
and  corrupt  ministry,  and  their  servile  tools, 
to  whom  we  were  not  more  opposed  than  they 
were.  I  trust  that  none  such  may  ever  exist 
among  us;  for  tools  will  never  be  wanting  to 
subserve  the  purposes,  however  ruinous  or 
wicked,  of  kings  and  ministers  of  state. 

I  acknowledge  the  influence  of  a  Shakespeare 
and  a  Milton  upon  my  imagination,  of  a  Locke 
upon  my  understanding,  of  a  Sidney  upon  my 
political  principles,  of  a  Chatham  upon  quali 
ties  which,  would  to  God,  I  possessed  in  com 
mon  with  that  illustrious  man !  of  a  Tillotson, 
a  Sherlock,  and  a  Porteus  upon  my  religion. 
61 


American 


This  is  a  British  influence  which  I  can  never 
shake  off.  I  allow  much  to  the  just  and  honest 
prejudices  growing  out  of  the  Revolution. 
But  by  whom  have  they  been  suppressed 
when  they  ran  counter  to  the  interests  of  my 
country  ?  By  Washington.  By  whom,  would 
you  listen  to  them,  are  they  most  keenly  felt  ? 
By  felons  escaped  from  the  jails  of  Paris,  New 
gate,  and  Kilmainham,  since  the  breaking  out 
of  the  French  Revolution;  who,  in  this  abused 
and  insulted  country,  have  set  up  for  political 
teachers,  and  whose  disciples  give  no  other 
proof  of  their  progress  in  republicanism  ex 
cept  a  blind  devotion  to  the  most  ruthless  mili 
tary  despotism  that  the  world  ever  saw. 
These  are  the  patriots  who  scruple  not  to 
brand  with  the  epithet  of  tory  the  men, 
[looking  towards  the  seat  of  Colonel  Stewart] 
by  whose  blood  your  liberties  have  been 
cemented.  These  are  they  who  hold  in  such 
keen  remembrance  the  outrages  of  the  British 
armies,  from  which  many  of  them  are  desert 
ers.  Ask  these  self-styled  patriots  where  they 
were  during  the  American  war  (  for  they  are, 
for  the  most  part,  old  enough  to  have  borne 
arms),  and  you  strike  them  dumb;  their  lips 
are  closed  in  eternal  silence.  If  it  were  allow 
able  to  entertain  partialities,  every  considera 
tion  of  blood,  language,  religion,  and  interest 
would  incline  us  towards  England;  and  yet, 
shall  they  be  alone  extended  to  France  and 
her  ruler,  whom,  we  are  bound  to  believe,  a 
62 


chastening  God  suffers  as  the  scourge  of  a 
guilty  world!  On  all  other  nations  he  tram 
ples;  he  holds  them  in  contempt;  England 
alone  he  hates;  he  would,  but  he  cannot,  de 
spise  her;  fear  cannot  despise;  and  shall  we 
disparage  our  ancestors?  Shall  we  bastard 
ize  ourselves  by  placing  them  even  below  the 
brigands  of  St.  Domingo?  —  with  whom  Mr. 
Adams  negotiated  a  sort  of  treaty,  for  which 
he  ought  to  have  been,  and  would  have  been, 
impeached  if  the  people  had  not  previously 
passed  sentence  of  disqualification  for  their 
service  upon  him.  This  antipathy  to  all  that 
is  English  must  be  French. 

But  the  outrages  and  injuries  of  England — 
bred  up  in  the  principles  of  the  Revolution  — 
I  can  never  palliate,  much  less  defend  them. 
I  well  remember  flying  with  my  mother  and 
her  new-born  child  from  Arnold  and  Philips; 
and  we  were  driven  by  Tarleton  and  other 
British  Pandours  from  pillar  to  post,  while 
her  husband  was  fighting  the  battles  of  his 
country.  The  impression  is  indelible  on  my 
memory;  and  yet  (like  my  worthy  old  neigh 
bor,  who  added  seven  buckshot  to  every  car 
tridge  at  the  battle  of  Gulford,  and  drew  a 
fine  sight  at  his  man)  I  must  be  content  to 
be  called  a  tory  by  a  patriot  of  the  last  im 
portation.  Let  us  not  get  rid  of  one  evil 
(supposing  it  possible)  at  the  expense  of  a 
greater:  mutatis  mutandis,  suppose  France  in 
possession  of  the  British  naval  power, —  and 
63 


American 


to  her  the  trident  must  pass  should  England  be 
unable  to  wield  it,  —  what  would  be  your  con 
dition  ?  What  would  be  the  situation  of  your 
seaports,  and  their  seafaring  inhabitants  ?  Ask 
Hamburg,  Lubec  !  Ask  Savannah!  What! 
Sir,  when  their  privateers  are  pent  up  in  our 
harbors  by  the  British  bulldogs;  when  they 
receive  at  our  hands  every  rite  of  hospitality 
from  which  their  enemy  is  excluded;  when 
they  capture  in  our  own  waters,  interdicted  to 
British  armed  ships,  American  vessels;  when 
such  is  their  deportment  towards  you,  under 
such  circumstances,  what  could  you  expect  if 
they  were  the  uncontrolled  lords  of  the  ocean? 
Had  those  privateers  at  Savannah  borne  Brit 
ish  commissions,  or  had  your  shipments  of 
cotton,  tobacco,  ashes,  and  what  not,  to  Lon 
don  and  Liverpool  been  confiscated,  and  the 
proceeds  poured  into  the  English  exchequer, 
my  life  upon  it,  you  would  never  have  listened 
to  any  miserable  wire-drawn  distinctions  be 
tween  "orders  and  decrees  affecting  our  neu 
tral  rights,"  and  "  municipal  decrees  "  confis 
cating  in  mass  your  whole  property;  you  would 
have  had  instant  war  !  The  whole  land  would 
have  blazed  out  in  war. 

•*  And  shall  republicans  become  the  instru 
ments  of  him  who  has  effaced  the  title  of  Attila 
to  the  "  scourge  of  God  1"  Yet,  even  Attila, 
in  the  falling  fortunes  of  civilization,  had,  no 
doubt,  his  advocates,  his  tools,  his  minions, 
his  parasites,  in  the  very  countries  that  he  over- 
64 


ran;  sons  of  that  soil  whereon  his  horse  had 
trod;  where  grass  could  never  after  grow.  If 
perfectly  fresh,  instead  of  being  as  I  am,  my 
memory  clouded,  my  intellect  stupefied,  my 
strength  and  spirits  exhausted,  I  could  not  give 
utterance  to  that  strong  detestation  which  I 
feel  towards  (above  all  other  works  of  the  cre 
ation)  such  characters  as  Gengis,  Tamerlane, 
Kouli-Khan,  or  Bonaparte.  My  instincts  in 
voluntarily  revolt  at  their  bare  idea.  Male 
factors  of  the  human  race,  who  have  ground 
down  man  to  a  mere  machine  of  their  impious 
and  bloody  ambition!  Yet  under  all  the  ac 
cumulated  wrongs,  and  insults,  and  robberies 
of  the  last  of  these  chieftains,  are  we  not,  in 
point  of  fact,  about  to  become  a  party  to  his 
views,  a  partner  in  his  wars  ? 
*"  But  before  this  miserable  force  of  ten  thou 
sand  men  is  raised  to  take  Canada,  I  beg  gentle 
men  to  look  at  the  state  of  defense  at  home; 
to  count  the  cost  of  the  enterprise  before 
it  is  set  on  foot,  not  when  it  may  be  too 
late ;  when  the  best  blood  of  the  country  shall 
be  spilt,  and  nought  but  empty  coffers  left  to 
pay  the  cost.  ;  Are  the  bounty  lands  to  be 
given  in  Canada  ?  It  might  lessen  my  repug 
nance  to  that  part  of  the  system,  to  granting 
these  lands,  not  to  these  miserable  wretches 
who  sell  themselves  to  slavery  for  a  few  dol 
lars  and  a  glass  of  gin,  but  in  fact  to  the  clerks 
in  our  offices,  some  of  whom,  with  an  income 
of  fifteen  hundred  or  two  thousand  dollars, 
65 


American 


live  at  the  rate  of  four  or  five  thousand,  and 
yet  grow  rich;  who  perhaps  at  this  moment 
are  making  out  blank  assignments  for  these 
land  rights. 

rl  beseech  the  House,  before  they  run  their 
heads  against  this  post,  Quebec,  to  count  the 
cost.  My  word  for  it,  Virginia  planters  will 
not  be  taxed  to  support  such  a  war,  —  a  war 
which  must  aggravate  their  present  distresses; 
in  which  they  have  not  the  remotest  interest. 
Wh^re  is  the  Montgomery,  or  even  the  Arnold, 
or  the  Burr,  who  is  to  march  to  the  Point  Levi  ? 
I  call  upon  those  professing  to  be  republicans 
to  make  good  the  promises  held  out  by  their 
republican  predecessors  when  they  came  into 
power;  promises  which,  for  years  afterwards, 
they  honestly,  faithfully  fulfilled.  We  have 
vaunted  of  paying  off  the  national  debt;  of 
retrenching  useless  establishments;  and  yet 
have  now  become  as  infatuated  with  standing 
armies,  loans,  taxes,  navies,  and  war,  as  ever 
were  the  Essex  Junto.  What  republicanism  is 
this? 


66 


Clay 

(1777-1852) 

ON   THE   WAR   OF    1812 

[Delivered    January    8,    1813,    in    the     House   of 
Representatives.] 


MR.  CHAIRMAN: 

I  WAS  gratified  yesterday  by  the  recommit 
ment  of  this  bill  to  a  committee  of  the  whole 
House,  from  two  considerations:  one,  since 
it  afforded  me  a  slight  relaxation  from  a  most 
fatiguing  situation;  and  the  other,  because  it 
furnished  me  with  an  opportunity  of  presenting 
to  the  committee  my  sentiments  upon  the  im 
portant  topics  which  have  been  mingled  in  the 
debate.  I  regret,  however,  that  the  necessity 
under  which  the  chairman  has  been  placed  of 
putting  the  question  precludes  the  opportu 
nity,  I  had  wished  to  enjoy,  of  rendering  more 
acceptable  to  the  committee  anything  I  might 
have  to  offer  on  the  interesting  points  on  which 
it  is  my  duty  to  touch.  Unprepared,  however, 
as  I  am  to  speak  on  this  day,  of  which  I  am 
the  more  sensible  from  the  ill  state  of  my 
health,  I  will  solicit  the  attention  of  the  com 
mittee  for  a  few  moments. 

I  was  a  little    astonished,  I    confess,  when 
I  found  this  bill  permitted  to    pass  silently 
through  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  not 
67 


;#lemoraWe  American 


selected  until  the  moment  when  the  question 
was  to  be  put  for  its  third  reading,  as  the  sub 
ject  on  which  gentlemen  in  the  opposition  chose 
to  lay  before  the  House  their  views  of  the 
interesting  attitude  in  which  the  nation  stands. 
It  did  appear  to  me  that  the  loan  bill,  which 
will  soon  come  before  us,  would  have  afforded 
a  much  more  proper  occasion,  it  being  more 
essential  as  providing  the  ways  and  means  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  war.  But  the  gentle 
men  had  the  right  of  selection,  and  having 
exercised  it,  no  matter  how  improperly,  I  am 
gratified,  whatever  I  may  think  of  the  charac 
ter  of  some  part  of  the  debate,  at  the  latitude 
in  which,  for  once,  they  have  been  indulged. 
I  claim  only  in  return,  of  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  of  the  House,  and  of  the  com 
mittee,  a  like  indulgence  in  expressing  my  sen 
timents  with  the  same  unrestrained  freedom. 
Perhaps,  in  the  course  of  the  remarks  which 
I  feel  myself  called  upon  to  make,  gentlemen 
may  apprehend  that  they  assume  too  harsh  an 
aspect  ;  but  I  have  only  now  to  say  that  I  shall 
speak  of  parties,  measures,  and  things  as  they 
strike  my  moral  sense,  protesting  against  the 
imputation  of  any  intention  on  my  part  to 
wound  the  feelings  of  any  gentleman. 

Considering  the  situation  in  which  this  coun 
try  is  now  placed,  —  a  state  of  actual  war  with 
one  of  the  most  powerful  nations  on  the  earth, 
—  it  may  not  be  useless  to  take  a  view  of  the 
past,  and  of  the  various  parties  which  have  at 
68 


Clap 


different  times  appeared  in  this  country,  and 
to  attend  to  the  manner  by  which  we  have  been 
driven  from  a  peaceful  posture  to  our  present 
warlike  attitude.  Such  an  inquiry  may  assist 
in  guiding  us  to  that  result,  an  honorable  peace, 
which  must  be  the  sincere  desire  of  every 
friend  to  America.  The  course  of  that  oppo 
sition,  by  which  the  administration  of  the 
government  had  been  unremittingly  impeded 
for  the  last  twelve  years,  was  singular,  and, 
I  believe,  unexampled  in  the  history  of  any 
country.  It  has  been  alike  the  duty  and  the 
interest  of  the  administration  to  preserve  peace: 
it  was  their  duty,  because  it  is  necessary  to 
the  growth  of  an  infant  people,  to  their  genius, 
and  to  their  habits;  it  was  their  interest, 
because  a  change  of  the  condition  of  the  nation 
brings  along  with  it  a  danger  of  the  loss  of  the 
affections  of  the  people.  The  administration 
has  not  been  forgetful  of  these  solemn  obliga 
tions.  No  art  has  been  left  unessayed,  no 
experiment  promising  a  favorable  result  left 
untried,  to  maintain  the  peaceful  relations  of 
the  country.  When  some  six  or  seven  years 
ago  the  affairs  of  the  nation  assumed  a  threat 
ening  aspect,  a  partial  non-importation  was 
adopted.  As  they  grew  more  alarming,  an 
embargo  was  imposed.  It  would  have  accom 
plished  its  purpose,  but  it  was  sacrificed  upon 
the  altar  of  conciliation.  Vain  and  fruitless 
attempt  to  propitiate!  Then  came  along 
non-intercourse ;  and  a  general  non-importation 
69 


American 


followed  in  the  train.  In  the  mean  time,  any 
indications  of  a  return  to  the  public  law  and 
the  path  of  justice,  on  the  part  of  either  bel 
ligerent,  are  seized  upon  with  avidity  by  the 
administration.  The  arrangement  with  Mr. 
Erskine  is  concluded.  It  is  first  applauded 
and  then  censured  by  the  opposition.  No 
matter  with  what  unfeigned  sincerity,  with 
what  real  effort,  the  administration  cultivates 
peace,  the  opposition  insists  that  it  alone  is 
culpable  for  every  breach  that  is  made  between 
the  two  countries.  Because  the  President 
thought  proper,  in  accepting  the  proffered 
reparation  for  the  attack  on  a  national  vessel, 
to  intimate  that  it  would  have  better  comport 
ed  with  the  justice  of  the  king  (and  who  does 
not  think  so  ?)  to  punish  the  offending  officer, 
the  opposition,  entering  into  the  royal  feelings, 
sees,  in  that  imaginary  insult,  abundant  cause 
for  rejecting  Mr.  Erskine's  arrangement.  On 
another  occasion,  you  cannot  have  forgotten 
the  hypocritical  ingenuity  which  they  dis 
played,  to  divest  Mr.  Jackson's  correspondence 
of  a  premeditated  insult  to  this  country.  If 
gentlemen  would  only  reserve  for  their  own 
government  half  the  sensibility  which  is  in 
dulged  for  that  of  Great  Britain,  they  would 
find  much  less  to  condemn.  Restriction  after 
restriction  has  been  tried;  negotiation  has  been 
resorted  to  until  further  negotiation  would 
have  been  disgraceful.  While  these  peaceful 
experiments  are  undergoing  a  trial,  what  is 
70 


Clap 


the  conduct  of  the  opposition  ?  They  are  the 
champions  of  war, —  the  proud,  the  spirited,  the 
sole  repository  of  the  nation's  honor,  the  men 
of  exclusive  vigor  and  energy.  The  administra 
tion,  on  the  contrary,  is  weak,  feeble,  and 
pusillanimous, "  incapable  of  being  kicked  into 
a  war."  The  maxim,  "  Not  a  cent  for  tribute, 
millions  for  defense,"  is  loudly  proclaimed. 
Is  the  administration  for  negotiation  ?  The 
opposition  is  tired,  sick,  disgusted  with  nego 
tiation.  They  want  to  draw  the  sword  and 
avenge  the  nation's  wrongs.  When,  how 
ever,  foreign  nations,  perhaps  emboldened  by 
the  very  opposition  here  made,  refuse  to  listen 
to  the  amicable  appeals,  which  have  been  re 
peated  and  reiterated  by  the  administration, 
to  their  justice  and  to  their  interest;  when,  in 
fact,  war  with  one  of  them  has  become  identified 
with  our  independence  and  our  sovereignty, 
and  to  abstain  from  it  was  no  longer  possi 
ble,  behold  the  opposition  veering  round  and 
becoming  the  friends  of  peace  and  commerce. 
They  tell  you  of  the  calamities  of  war,  its 
tragical  events,  the  squandering  away  of  your 
resources,  the  waste  of  the  public  treasure,  and 
the  spilling  of  innocent  blood.  "Gorgons,  hy 
dras,  and  chimeras  dire."  They  tell  you  that 
honor  is  an  illusion.  Now  we  see  them  ex 
hibiting  the  terrific  forms  of  the  roaring  king 
of  the  forest;  now  the  meekness  and  humility 
of  the  lamb.  They  are  for  war  and  no  restric 
tions  when  the  administration  is  for  peace. 


American 


They  are  for  peace  and  restrictions  when  the 
administration  is  for  war.  You  find  them,  sir, 
tacking  with  every  gale,  displaying  the  colors 
of  every  party  and  of  all  nations,  steady  only 
in  one  unalterable  purpose,  —  to  steer,  if  pos 
sible,  into  the  haven  of  power. 

During  all  this  time,  the  parasites  of  oppo 
sition  do  not  fail,  by  cunning  sarcasm  or  sly 
innuendo,  to  throw  out  the  idea  of  French 
influence,  which  is  known  to  be  false,  which 
ought  to  be  met  in  one  manner  only,  and  that 
is  by  the  lie  direct.  The  administration  of  this 
country  devoted  to  foreign  influence  !  The 
administration  of  this  country  subservient  to 
France  !  Great  God,  what  a  charge  !  How  is 
it  so  influenced  ?  By  what  ligament,  on  what 
basis,  on  what  possible  foundation  does  it 
rest  ?  Is  it  similarity  of  language  ?  No  !  We 
speak  different  tongues;  we  speak  the  English 
language.  On  the  resemblance  of  our  laws? 
No  !  The  sources  of  our  jurisprudence  spring 
from  another  and  a  different  country.  On 
commercial  intercourse  ?  No  !  We  have  com 
paratively  none  with  France.  Is  it  from  the 
correspondence  in  the  genius  of  the  two  gov 
ernments  ?  No  !  Here  alone  is  the  liberty  of 
man  secure  from  the  inexorable  despotism 
which  everywhere  else  tramples  it  under  foot. 
Where,  then,  is  the  ground  of  such  an  influ 
ence  ?  But,  sir,  I  am  insulting  you  by  arguing 
on  such  a  subject.  Yet,  preposterous  and  ri 
diculous  as  the  insinuation  is,  it  is  propagated 
72 


iijenrp  Clap 


with  so  much  industry  that  there  are  persons 
found  foolish  and  credulous  enough  to  believe 
it.  You  will,  no  doubt,  think  it  incredible  (but 
I  have  nevertheless  been  told  it  as  a  fact)  that 
an  honorable  member  of  this  House,  now  in 
my  eye,  recently  lost  his  election  by  the  circu 
lation  of  a  silly  story  in  his  district  that  he 
was  the  first  cousin  of  the  Emperor  Napoleon. 
The  proof  of  the  charge  rested  on  the  state 
ment  of  facts,  which  was  undoubtedly  true. 
The  gentleman  in  question,  it  was  alleged, 
had  married  a  connection  of  the  lady  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  who  was  the 
intimate  friend  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  late  Pres 
ident  of  the  United  States,  who  some  years 
ago  was  in  the  habit  of  wearing  red  French 
breeches.  Now,  taking  these  premises  as 
established,  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  too  good 
a  logician  not  to  see  that  the  conclusion 
necessarily  follows. 

Throughout  the  period  he  had  been  speaking 
of,  the  opposition  has  been  distinguished,  amid 
all  its  veerings  and  changes,  by  another  inflex 
ible  feature, —  the  application  to  Bonaparte 
of  every  vile  and  opprobrious  epithet  our  lan 
guage,  copious  as  it  is  in  terms  of  vituperation, 
affords.  He  has  been  compared  to  every  hid 
eous  monster  and  beast,  from  that  mentioned 
in  the  Revelations  down  to  the  most  insignifi 
cant  quadruped.  He  has  been  called  the  scourge 
of  mankind,  the  destroyer  of  Europe,  the  great 
robber,  the  infidel,  the  modern  Attila,  and 
73 


American 


heaven  knows  by  what  other  names.  Really, 
gentlemen  remind  me  of  an  obscure  lady,  in 
a  city  not  very  far  off,  who  also  took  it  into  her 
head,  in  conversation  with  an  accomplished 
French  gentleman,  to  talk  of  the  affairs  of 
Europe.  She,  too,  spoke  of  the  destruction 
of  the  balance  of  power;  stormed  and  raged 
about  the  insatiable  ambition  of  the  emperor; 
called  him  the  curse  of  mankind,  the  destroyer 
of  Europe.  The  Frenchman  listened  to  her  with 
perfect  patience,  and  when  she  had  ceased, 
said  to  her,  with  ineffable  politeness,  "  Mad 
ame,  it  would  give  my  master,  the  emperor, 
infinite  pain  if  he  knew  how  hardly  you  thought 
of  him."  Sir,  gentlemen  appear  to  me  to 
forget  that  they  stand  on  American  soil;  that 
they  are  not  in  the  British  House  of  Com 
mons,  but  in  the  chamber  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  of  the  United  States;  that  we 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  affairs  of  Europe, 
the  partition  of  territory  and  sovereignty  there, 
except  so  far  as  these  things  affect  the  inter 
ests  of  our  own  country.  Gentlemen  transform 
themselves  into  the  Burkes,  Chathams,  and 
Pitts  of  another  country,  and  forgetting,  from 
honest  zeal,  the  interests  of  America,  engage 
with  European  sensibility  in  the  discussion  of 
European  interests.  If  gentlemen  ask  me 
whether  I  do  not  view  with  regret  and  horror  the 
concentration  of  such  vast  power  in  the  hands 
of  Bonaparte,  I  reply,  that  I  do.  I  regret  to 
see  the  Emperor  of  China  holding  such  im- 
74 


J^enrp  Clap 


mense  sway  over  the  fortunes  of  millions  of 
our  species.  I  regret  to  see  Great  Britain 
possessing  so  uncontrolled  a  command  over 
all  the  waters  of  our  globe.  If  I  had  the 
ability  to  distribute  among  the  nations  of 
Europe  their  several  portions  of  power  and 
of  sovereignty,  I  would  say  that  Holland 
should  be  resuscitated,  and  given  the  weight 
she  enjoyed  in  the  days  of  her  De  Witts.  I 
would  confine  France  within  her  natural  boun 
daries,  the  Alps,  Pyrenees,  and  the  Rhine,  and 
make  her  a  secondary  naval  power  only.  I 
would  abridge  the  British  maritime  power, 
raise  Prussia  and  Austria  to  their  original 
condition,  and  preserve  the  integrity  of  the 
empire  of  Russia.  But  these  are  speculations. 
I  look  at  the  political  transactions  of  Europe, 
with  the  single  exception  of  their  possible 
bearing  upon  us,  as  I  do  at  the  history  of 
other  countries,  or  other  times.  I  do  not 
survey  them  with  half  the  interest  that  I  do 
the  movements  in  South  America.  Our  politi 
cal  relation  with  them  is  much  less  important 
than  it  is  supposed  to  be.  I  have  no  fears  of 
French  or  English  subjugation.  If  we  are 
united  we  are  too  powerful  for  the  mightiest 
nation  in  Europe,  or  all  Europe  combined.  If 
we  are  separated  and  torn  asunder,  we  shall 
become  an  easy  prey  to  the  weakest  of  them. 
In  the  latter  dreadful  contingency,  our  coun 
try  will  not  be  worth  preserving. 

Next   to   the   notice  which  the  opposition 
75 


JBlemora&Ie  American 


has  found  itself  called  upon  to  bestow  upon 
the  French  emperor,  a  distinguished  citizen 
of  Virignia,  formerly  President  of  the  United 
States,  has  never  for  a  moment  failed  to  receive 
their  kindest  and  most  respectful  attention. 
An  honorable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
[Mr.  Quincy],  of  whom  I  am  sorry  to  say  it 
becomes  necessary  for  me,  in  the  course  of  my 
remarks,  to  take  some  notice,  has  alluded  to 
him  in  a  remarkable  manner.  Neither  his 
retirement  from  public  office,  his  eminent  ser 
vices,  nor  his  advanced  age  can  exempt  this 
patriot  from  the  coarse  assaults  of  party 
malevolence.  No,  sir,  in  1801  he  snatched 
from  the  rude  hand  of  usurpation  the  violated 
constitution  of  his  country,  and  that  is  his 
crime.  He  preserved  that  instrument  in  form 
and  substance  and  spirit,  a  precious  inheri 
tance  for  generations  to  come,  and  for  this  he 
can  never  be  forgiven.  How  vain  and  impo 
tent  is  party  rage  directed  against  such  a  man  ! 
He  is  not  more  elevated  by  his  lofty  residence 
upon  the  summit  of  his  own  favorite  mountain 
than  he  is  lifted,  by  the  serenity  of  his  mind 
and  the  consciousness  of  a  well-spent  life, 
above  the  malignant  passions  and  bitter  feel 
ings  of  the  day.  No  !  His  own  beloved  Monti- 
cello  is  not  more  moved  by  the  storms  that  beat 
against  its  sides  than  is  this  illustrious  man 
by  the  howlings  of  the  whole  British  pack,  set 
loose  from  the  Essex  kennel  !  When  the  gen 
tleman  to  whom  I  have  been  compelled  to 
76 


allude  shall  have  mingled  his  dust  with  that  of 
his  abused  ancestors,  when  he  shall  have  been 
consigned  to  oblivion,  or,  if  he  lives  at  all,  shall 
live  only  in  the  treasonable  annals  of  a  certain 
junto,  the  name  of  Jefferson  will  be  hailed  with 
gratitude,  his  memory  honored  and  cherished  as 
the  second  founder  of  the  liberties  of  the  peo 
ple,  and  the  period  of  his  administration  will 
be  looked  back  to  as  one  of  the  happiest  and 
brightest  epochs  of  American  history, —  an 
oasis  in  the  midst  of  a  sandy  desert.  But  I 
beg  the  gentleman's  pardon;  he  has,  indeed, 
secured  to  himself  a  more  imperishable  fame 
than  I  had  supposed.  I  think  it  was  about 
four  years  ago  that  he  submitted  to  the  House 
of  Representatives  an  initiative  proposition  for 
an  impeachment  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  The  House 
condescended  to  consider  it.  The  gentleman 
debated  it  with  his  usual  temper,  moderation, 
and  urbanity.  The  House  decided  upon  it  in  the 
most  solemn  manner,  and,  although  the  gentle 
man  had  somehow  obtained  a  second,  the  final 
vote  stood  one  for  and  one  hundred  and  seven 
teen  against  the  proposition. 

In  one  respect  there  is  a  remarkable  differ 
ence  between  the  administration  and  the  oppo 
sition:  it  is  in  a  sacred  regard  for  personal 
liberty.  When  out  of  power,  my  political 
friends  condemned  the  surrender  of  Jonathan 
Robbins;  they  opposed  the  violation  of  the 
freedom  of  the  press  in  the  sedition  law;  they 
opposed  the  more  insidious  attack  upon  the 
77 


American 


freedom  of  the  person,  under  the  imposing 
garb  of  an  alien  law.  The  party  now  in  oppo 
sition,  then  in  power,  advocated  the  sacrifice 
of  the  unhappy  Robbins,  and  passed  those  two 
laws.  True  to  our  principles,  we  are  now 
struggling  for  the  liberty  of  our  seamen 
against  foreign  oppression.  True  to  theirs, 
they  oppose  a  war  undertaken  for  this  object. 
They  have,  indeed,  lately  affected  a  tender 
solicitude  for  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and 
talk  of  the  danger  of  standing  armies,  and  the 
burden  of  the  taxes.  But  it  must  be  evident  to 
you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  they  speak  in  a  foreign 
idiom.  Their  brogue  evinces  that  it  is  not 
their  vernacular  tongue.  What!  the  oppo 
sition  who  in  1798  and  1799  could  raise  a 
useless  army  to  fight  an  enemy  three  thou 
sand  miles  distant  from  us,  alarmed  at  the  ex 
istence  of  one  raised  for  a  known  and  specified 
object,  —  the  attack  of  the  adjoining  provinces 
of  the  enemy!  What!  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  who  assisted  by  his  vote  to 
raise  the  army  of  twenty-five  thousand,  alarmed 
at  the  danger  of  our  liberties  from  this  very 
army! 

But,  sir,  I  must  speak  of  another  subject 
which  I  never  think  of  but  with  feelings  of  the 
deepest  awe.  The  gentleman  from  Massachu 
setts,  in  imitation  of  some  of  his  predecessors 
of  1799,  has  entertained  us  with  a  picture  of 
cabinet  plots,  presidential  plots,  and  all  sorts 
of  plots,  which  have  been  engendered  by  the 
78 


I^enrp  Clap 


diseased  state  of  the  gentleman's  imagination. 
I  wish,  sir,  that  another  plot  of  a  much  more 
serious  and  alarming  character — a  plot  that 
aims  at  the  dismemberment  of  our  Union — 
had  only  the  same  imaginary  existence.  But 
no  man  who  has  paid  any  attention  to  the  tone 
of  certain  prints,  and  to  transactions  in  a  par 
ticular  quarter  of  the  Union,  for  several  years 
past,  can  doubt  the  existence  of  such  a  plot. 
It  was  far,  very  far,  from  my  intention  to 
charge  the  opposition  with  such  a  design.  No, 
I  believe  them  generally  incapable  of  it.  But 
I  cannot  say  as  much  for  some  who  have  been 
unworthily  associated  with  them  in  the  quarter 
of  the  Union  to  which  I  have  referred.  The 
gentleman  cannot  have  forgotten  his  own  senti 
ments,  uttered  even  on  the  floor  of  this  House, 
"  peaceably  if  we  can,  forcibly  if  we  must," 
nearly  at  the  very  time  Henry's  mission  to 
Boston  was  undertaken.  The  flagitiousness  of 
that  embassy  had  been  attempted  to  be  con 
cealed  by  directing  the  public  attention  to  the 
price  which  the  gentleman  says  was  given  for 
the  disclosure.  As  if  any  price  could  change 
the  atrociousness  of  the  attempt  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain,  or  could  extenuate,  in  the  slight 
est  degree,  the  offense  of  those  citizens  who 
entertained  and  deliberated  upon  a  proposition 
so  infamous  and  unnatural!  There  was  a 
most  remarkable  coincidence  between  some  of 
the  things  which  that  man  states  and  certain 
events  in  the  quarter  alluded  to.  In  the  con- 
79 


American 


tingency  of  war  with  Great  Britain,  it  will  be 
recollected  that  the  neutrality  and  eventual 
separation  of  that  section  of  the  Union  was 
to  be  brought  about.  How,  sir,  has  it  hap 
pened  since  the  declaration  of  war,  that  British 
officers  in  Canada  have  asserted  to  American 
officers  that  this  very  neutrality  would  take 
place?  That  they  have  so  asserted  can  be 
established  beyond  controversy.  The  project 
is  not  brought  forward  openly  with  a  direct 
avowal  of  the  intention.  No  ;  the  stock  of  good 
sense  and  patriotism  in  that  portion  of  the 
country  is  too  great  to  be  undisguisedly  en 
countered.  It  is  assailed  from  the  masked  bat 
teries  of  friendship,  of  peace  and  commerce  on 
the  one  side,  and  by  the  groundless  imputation 
of  opposite  propensities  on  the  other.  The 
affections  of  the  people  there  are  gradually 
to  be  undermined.  The  project  is  suggested 
or  withdrawn;  the  diabolical  dramatis  persona 
in  this  criminal  tragedy  make  their  appearance 
or  exit  as  the  audience  to  whom  they  address 
themselves  applaud  or  condemn.  I  was  aston 
ished,  sir,  in  reading  lately  a  letter,  or  pretend 
ed  letter,  published  in  a  prominent  print  in  that 
quarter,  and  written,  not  in  the  fervor  of  party 
zeal,  but  coolly  and  dispassionately,  to  find  that 
the  writer  affected  to  reason  about  a  separa 
tion,  and  attempted  to  demonstrate  its  advan 
tages  to  the  different  portions  of  the  Union, 
deploring  the  existence  now  of  what  he  terms 
prejudices  against  it,  but  hoping  for  the  arrival 
80 


Clap 


of  the  period  when  they  shall  be  eradicated. 
But,  sir,  I  will  quit  this  unpleasent  subject;  I 
will  turn  from  one  whom  no  sense  of  decency 
or  propriety  could  restrain  from  soiling  the 
carpet  on  which  he  treads,  to  gentlemen  who 
have  not  forgotten  what  is  due  to  themselves, 
to  the  place  in  which  we  are  assembled,  or  to 
those  by  whom  they  are  opposed.  The  gentle 
man  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Pearson],  from 
Connecticut  [Mr.  Pitkin],  and  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Bleeker]  have,  with  their  usual  decorum, 
contended  that  the  war  would  not  have  been 
declared  had  it  not  been  for  the  duplicity  of 
France  in  withholding  an  authentic  instrument 
repealing  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan;  that 
upon  the  exhibition  of  such  an  instrument  the 
revocation  of  the  orders  in  council  took  place; 
that  this  main  cause  of  the  war,  but  for  which 
it  would  not  have  been  declared,  being  re 
moved,  the  administration  ought  to  seek  for  the 
restoration  of  peace ;  and  that  upon  its  sincere 
ly  doing  so,  terms  compatible  with  the  honor 
and  interest  of  this  country  might  be  obtained. 
It  is  my  purpose  to  examine,  first,  into  the  cir 
cumstances  under  which  the  war  was  declared; 
secondly,  into  the  causes  of  continuing  it;  and 
lastly,  into  the  means  which  have  been  taken, 
or  ought  to  be  taken,  to  procure  peace;  but,  sir, 
I  am  really  so  exhausted  that,  little  as  I  am  in 
the  habit  of  asking  of  the  House  an  indulgence 
of  this  kind,  I  feel  I  must  trespass  on  their 
goodness. 

81 


American  <§>peerf)e# 


[Here  Mr.  Clay  sat  down.  Mr.  Newton  moved 
that  the  committee  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again,  which  was  done.  On  the  next  day 
he  proceeded.] 

I  am  sensible,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  some  part 
of  the  debate  to  which  this  bill  has  given  rise 
has  been  attended  by  circumstances  much  to 
be  regretted,  not  usual  in  this  House,  and  of 
which  it  is  to  be  hoped  there  will  be  no  rep 
etition.  The  gentleman  from  Boston  had  so 
absolved  himself  from  every  rule  of  decorum 
and  propriety,  had  so  outraged  all  decency, 
that  I  have  found  it  impossible  to  suppress  the 
feelings  excited  on  the  occasion.  His  colleague, 
whom  I  have  the  honor  to  follow  [Mr.  Whea- 
ton],  whatever  else  he  might  not  have  proved 
in  his  very  learned,  ingenious,  and  original  ex 
position  of  the  powers  of  this  government,  — 
an  exposition  in  which  he  has  sought,  where 
nobody  before  him  has,  and  nobody  after  him 
will  look,  for  a  grant  of  our  powers,  I  mean 
the  preamble  to  the  Constitution,  —  has  clearly 
shown,  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  who  heard  him, 
that  the  power  of  defensive  war  is  conferred. 
I  claim  the  benefit  of  a  similar  principle,  in 
behalf  of  my  political  friends,  against  the  gen 
tlemen  from  Boston.  I  demand  only  the  ex 
ercise  of  the  right  of  repulsion.  No  one  is 
more  anxious  than  I  am  to  preserve  the  dig 
nity  and  the  freedom  of  debate;  no  member  is 
more  responsible  for  its  abuse,  and  if  on  this 
occasion  its  just  limits  have  been  violated,  let 
82 


him  who  has  been  the  unprovoked  aggressor 
appropriate  to  himself  exclusively  the  conse 
quences. 

I  omitted  yesterday,  sir,  when  speaking  of  a 
delicate  and  painful  subject,  to  notice  a  power 
ful  engine  which  the  conspirators  against  the 
integrity  of  the  Union  employ  to  effect  their 
nefarious  purpose  :  I  mean  Southern  influence. 
The  true  friend  to  his  country,  knowing  that 
our  Constitution  was  the  work  of  compromise, 
in  which  interests  apparently  conflicting  were 
attempted  to  be  reconciled,  aims  to  extinguish 
or  allay  prejudices.  But  this  patriotic  exertion 
does  not  suit  the  views  of  those  who  are  urged 
on  by  diabolical  ambition.  They  find  it  con 
venient  to  imagine  the  existence  of  certain 
improper  influences,  and  to  propagate  with 
their  utmost  industry  a  belief  of  them.  Hence 
the  idea  of  Southern  preponderance,  Virginia 
influence,  the  yoking  of  the  respectable  yeo 
manry  of  the  North  with  negro  slaves  to  the 
car  of  Southern  nabobs.  If  Virginia  really 
cherished  a  reprehensible  ambition,  an  aim  to 
monopolize  the  chief  magistracy  of  the  country, 
how  was  such  a  purpose  to  be  accomplished  ? 
Virginia  alone  cannot  elect  a  president, 
whose  elevation  depends  upon  a  plurality  of 
electoral  votes,  and  a  consequent  concurrence 
of  many  states.  Would  Vermont,  disinterest 
ed  Pennsylvania,  the  Carolinas,  independent 
Georgia,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Ohio,  Louisi 
ana,  all  consent  to  become  the  tools  of  inordi- 
83 


American 


nate  ambition?  But  the  present  incumbent 
was  designated  to  the  office  before  his  prede 
cessor  had  retired.  How?  By  public  senti 
ment,  —  public  sentiment  which  grew  out  of  his 
known  virtues,  his  illustrious  services,  and  his 
distinguished  abilities.  Would  the  gentleman 
crush  this  public  sentiment  ?  Is  he  prepared  to 
admit  that  he  would  arrest  the  progress  of 
opinion  ? 

The  war  was  declared  because  Great  Britain 
arrogated  to  herself  the  pretension  of  regulat 
ing  our  foreign  trade,  under  the  delusive  name 
of  retaliatory  orders  in  council,  —  a  pretension 
by  which  she  undertook  to  proclaim  to  Ameri 
can  enterprise,  "Thus  far  shalt  thou  go.  and 
no  farther,"'  —  orders  which  she  refused  to  re 
voke  after  the  alleged  cause  of  their  enactment 
had  ceased,  because  she  persisted  in  the  prac 
tice  of  impressing  American  seamen,  because 
she  had  instigated  the  Indians  to  commit  hostil 
ities  against  us,  and  because  she  refused  indem 
nity  for  her  past  injuries  upon  our  commerce. 
I  throw  out  of  the  question  other  wrongs. 
The  war,  in  fact,  was  announced,  on  our  part, 
to  meet  the  war  which  she  was  waging  on 
her  part.  So  undeniable  were  the  causes  of 
the  war,  so  powerfully  did  they  address 
themselves  to  the  feeling  of  the  whole  Ameri 
can  people,  that  when  the  bill  was  pending  be 
fore  this  House,  gentlemen  in  the  opposition, 
although  provoked  to  debate,  would  not  or 
could  not  utter  one  syllable  against  it.  It  is 
84 


Jijenrp  Clap 


true,  they  wrapped  themselves  up  in  sullen 
silence,  pretending  they  did  not  choose  to  de 
bate  such  a  question  in  secret  session.  While 
speaking  of  the  proceedings  on  that  occasion,  I 
beg  to  be  permitted  to  advert  to  another  fact 
which  transpired,  —  an  important  fact,  material 
for  the  nation  to  know,  and  which  I  have  often 
regretted  had  not  been  spread  upon  our  jour 
nals. 

My  honorable  colleague  [Mr.  McKee]  moved, 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  comprehend 
France  in  the  war;  and  when  the  question  was 
taken  upon  the  proposition,  there  appeared 
but  ten  votes  in  support  of  it,  of  which  seven 
belonged  to  this  side  of  the  House,  and  three 
only  to  the  other!  It  is  said  that  we  were 
inveigled  into  the  war  by  the  perfidy  of  France ; 
and  that,  had  she  furnished  the  document  in 
time,  which  was  first  published  in  England, 
in  May  last,  it  would  have  been  prevented.  I 
will  concede  to  gentlemen  everything  they  ask 
about  the  injustice  of  France  toward  this  coun 
try.  I  wish  to  God  that  our  ability  was  equal 
to  our  disposition  to  make  her  feel  the  sense  that 
we  entertain  of  that  injustice.  The  manner  of 
the  publication  of  the  paper  in  question  was 
undoubtedly  extremely  exceptionable.  But  I 
maintain  that  had  it  made  its  appearance  ear 
lier  it  would  not  have  had  the  effect  supposed; 
and  the  proof  lies  in  the  unequivocal  declara 
tions  of  the  British  government.  I  will  trouble 
you,  sir,  with  going  no  farther  back  than  to  the 

85 


American 


letters  of  the  British  minister,  addressed  to  the 
Secretary  of  State,  just  before  the  expiration 
of  his  diplomatic  function.  It  will  be  recollect 
ed  by  the  committee  that  he  exhibited  to  this 
government  a  dispatch  from  Lord  Castlereagh, 
in  which  the  principle  was  distinctly  avowed, 
that  to  produce  the  effect  of  a  repeal  of  the 
orders  in  council,  the  French  decrees  must  be 
absolutely  and  entirely  revoked  as  to  all  the 
world,  and  not  as  to  America  alone.  A  copy 
of  that  dispatch  was  demanded  of  him,  and  he 
very  awkwardly  evaded  it.  But  on  the  loth 
of  June,  after  the  bill  declaring  war  had  actu 
ally  passed  this  House,  and  was  pending  be 
fore  the  Senate  (and  which,  I  have  no  doubt, 
was  known  to  him),  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe 
he  says:  "I  have  no  hesitation,  sir,  in  saying 
that  Great  Britain,  as  the  case  has  hitherto 
stood,  never  did,  and  never  could,  engage, 
without  the  greatest  injustice  to  herself  and  her 
allies,  as  well  as  to  other  neutral  nations,  to 
repeal  her  order  as  affecting  America  alone, 
leaving  them  in  force  against  other  states, 
upon  condition  that  France  would  except,  sin 
gly  and  specially,  America  from  the  operation 
of  her  decrees."  On  the  I4th  of  the  same 
month,  the  bill  still  pending  before  the  Senate, 
he  repeats:  "I  will  now  say  that  I  feel  entirely 
authorized  to  assure  you  that  if  you  can  at  any 
time  produce  a  full  and  unconditional  repeal  of 
the  French  decrees,  as  you  have  a  right  to  de 
mand  it  in  your  character  of  a  neutral  nation, 
86 


Clap 


and  that  it  be  disengaged  from  any  question 
concerning  our  maritime  rights,  we  shall  be 
ready  to  meet  you  with  a  revocation  of  the  or 
ders  in  council.  Previously  to  your  producing 
such  an  instrument,  which  I  am  sorry  to  see  you 
regard  as  unnecessary,  you  cannot  expect  of 
us  to  give  up  our  orders  in  council."  Thus, 
sir,  you  see  that  the  British  government  would 
not  be  content  with  a  repeal  of  the  French 
decrees  as  to  us  only.  But  the  French  paper 
in  question  was  such  a  repeal.  It  could  not, 
therefore,  satisfy  the  British  government.  It 
could  not,  therefore,  have  induced  that  govern 
ment,  had  it  been  earlier  promulgated,  to  repeal 
the  orders  in  council.  It  could  not,  therefore, 
have  averted  the  war.  The  withholding  of  it 
did  not  occasion  the  war,  and  the  promulgation 
of  it  would  not  have  prevented  the  war.  But 
gentlemen  have  contended  that,  in  point  of  fact, 
it  did  produce  a  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council. 
This  I  deny.  After  it  made  its  appearance  in 
England,  it  was  declared  by  one  of  the  British 
ministry,  in  Parliament,  not  to  be  satisfactory. 
And  all  the  world  knows  that  the  repeal  of  the 
brders  in  council  resulted  from  the  inquiry,  re 
luctantly  acceded  to  by  the  ministry,  into  the 
effect  upon  their  manufacturing  establishments, 
of  our  non-importation  law,  or  to  the  warlike 
attitude  assumed  by  this  government,  or  to 
both.  But  it  is  said  that  the  orders  in  coun 
cil  are  withdrawn,  no  matter  from  what  cause, 
and  that  having  been  the  sole  motive  for 
87 


American 


declaring  the  war,  the  relations  of  peace  ought 
to  be  restored.  This  brings  me  to  the  exami 
nation  of  the  grounds  for  continuing  the  pres 
ent  hostilities  between  this  country  and  Great 
Britain. 

I  am  far  from  acknowledging  that  had  the 
orders  in  council  been  repealed,  as  they  have 
been  before  the  war  was  declared,  the  declar 
ation  of  hostilities  would  of  course  have  been 
prevented.  In  a  body  so  numerous  as  this  is, 
from  which  the  declaration  emanated,  it  is  im 
possible  to  say,  with  any  degree  of  certainty, 
what  would  have  been  the  effect  of  such  a  re 
peal.  Each  member  must  answer  for  himself. 
As  to  myself,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying 
that  I  have  always  considered  the  impressment 
of  American  seamen  as  much  the  most  serious 
aggression.  But,  sir,  how  have  those  orders 
at  last  been  repealed  ?  Great  Britain,  it  is  true, 
has  intimated  a  willingness  to  suspend  their 
practical  operation,  but  she  still  arrogates  to 
herself  the  right  to  revive  them  upon  certain 
contingencies,  of  which  she  constitutes  herself 
the  sole  judge.  She  waives  the  temporary  use 
of  the  rod,  but  she  suspends  it  in  terror  em  over 
our  heads. 

Supposing  it  to  be  conceded  to,  gentlemen, 
that  such  a  repeal  of  the  orders  in  council  as 
took  place  on  the  23d  of  June  last,  exception 
able  as  it  is,  being  known  before  the  war  was 
proclaimed,  would  have  prevented  it,  does  it 
follow  that  it  ought  to  induce  us  to  lay  down 
88 


Clap 


our  arms  without  the   redress  of   any  other 
injury  of  which  we  complain  ? 

Does  it  follow,  in  all  cases,  that  what  would 
in  the  first  instance  have  prevented  would  also 
terminate  the  war  ?  By  no  means.  It  requires 
a  strong  and  powerful  effort  in  a  nation,  prone 
to  peace  as  this  is,  to  burst  through  its  habits 
and  encounter  the  difficulties  and  privations  of 
war.  Such  a  nation  ought  but  seldom  to  em 
bark  in  a  belligerent  contest;  but  when  it  does, 
it  should  be  for  obvious  and  essential  rights 
alone,  and  should  firmly  resolve  to  extort,  at 
all  hazards,  their  recognition.  The  war  of  the 
Revolution  is  an  example  of  a  war  begun  for 
one  object  and  prosecuted  for  another.  It 
was  waged,  in  its  commencement,  against  the 
right  asserted  by  the  parent  country  to  tax  the 
colonies.  Then  no  one  thought  of  absolute 
independence.  The  idea  of  independence  was 
repelled.  But  the  British  government  would 
have  relinquished  the  principle  of  taxation. 
The  founders  of  our  liberties  saw,  however, 
that  there  was  no  security  short  of  indepen 
dence,  and  they  achieved  that  independence. 
When  nations  are  engaged  in  war,  those  rights 
in  controversy  which  are  not  acknowledged 
by  the  treaty  of  peace  are  abandoned.  And 
who  is  prepared  to  say  that  American  seamen 
shall  be  surrendered  as  victims  to  the  English 
principle  of  impressment  ?  And,  sir,  what  is 
this  principle  ?  She  contends  that  she  has  a 
right  to  the  services  of  her  own  subjects;  and 
89 


^lemorafile  American 


that,  in  the  exercise  of  this  right,  she  may  law 
fully  impress  them,  even  although  she  finds 
them  in  American  vessels,  upon  the  high  seas, 
without  her  jurisdiction.  Now,  I  deny  that 
she  has  any  right,  beyond  her  jurisdiction,  to 
come  on  board  our  vessels,  upon  the  high  seas, 
for  any  other  purpose  than  in  pursuit  of  enemies 
or  their  goods,  or  goods  contraband  of  war.  But 
she  further  contends  that  her  subjects  cannot 
renounce  their  allegiance  to  her,  and  contract 
a  new  obligation  to  other  sovereigns.  I  do 
not  mean  to  go  into  the  general  question  of 
the  right  of  expatriation.  If,  as  is  contended, 
all  nations  deny  it,  all  nations  at  the  same  time 
admit  and  practice  the  right  of  naturalization. 
Great  Britain  herself  does  this.  Great  Britain, 
in  the  very  case  of  foreign  seamen,  imposes 
perhaps  fewer  restraints  upon  naturalization 
than  any  other  nation.  Then,  if  subjects  can 
not  break  their  original  allegiance,  they  may, 
according  to  universal  usage,  contract  a  new 
allegiance.  What  is  the  effect  of  this  double 
obligation?  Undoubtedly  that  the  sovereign, 
having  possession  of  the  subject,  would  have  the 
right  to  the  services  of  the  subject.  If  he 
return  within  the  jurisdiction  of  his  primitive 
sovereign  he  may  resume  his  right  to  his  ser 
vices,  of  which  the  subject,  by  his  own  act, 
could  not  divest  himself.  But  his  primitive 
sovereign  can  have  no  right  to  go  in  quest  of 
him,  out  of  his  own  jurisdiction,  into  the  juris 
diction  of  another  sovereign,  or  upon  the  high 
90 


Clap 


seas,  where  there  exists  either  no  jurisdiction, 
or  it  is  possessed  by  the  nation  owning  the 
ship  navigating  them.  But,  sir,  this  discus 
sion  is  altogether  useless.  It  is  not  to  the 
British  principle,  objectionable  as  it  is,  that  we 
are  alone  to  look ;  it  is  to  her  practice,  no 
matter  what  guise  she  puts  on.  It  is  in  vain 
to  assert  the  inviolability  of  the  obligation 
of  allegiance.  It  is  in  vain  to  set  up  the 
plea  of  necessity,  and  to  allege  that  she  cannot 
exist  without  the  impressment  of  her  seamen. 
The  naked  truth  is,  she  comes,  by  her  press- 
gangs,  on  board  of  our  vessels,  seizes  our  native 
as  well  as  naturalized  seamen,  and  drags  them 
into  her  service.  It  is  the  case,  then,  of  the 
assertion  of  an  erroneous  principle,  and  of  a 
practice  not  conformable  to  the  asserted  prin 
ciple, —  a  principle  which,  if  it  were  theoreti 
cally  right,  must  be  forever  practically  wrong; 
a  practice  which  can  obtain  countenance 
from  no  principle  whatever,  and  to  submit  to 
which,  on  our  part,  would  betray  the  most  ab 
ject  degradation.  We  are  told,  by  gentlemen 
in  the  opposition,  that  government  has  not 
done  all  that  was  incumbent  on  it  to  do  to 
avoid  just  cause  of  complaint  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain;  that,  in  particular,  the  certifi 
cates  of  protection,  authorized  by  the  act  of 
1796,  are  fraudulently  used.  Sir,  government 
has  done  too  much  in  granting  those  paper 
protections.  I  can  never  think  of  them  with 
out  being  shocked.  They  resemble  the  passes 


American 


which  the  master  grants  to  his  negro  slave,  — 
"Let  the  bearer,  Mungo,  pass  and  repass 
without  molestation."  What  do  they  imply? 
That  Great  Britain  has  a  right  to  seize  all  who 
are  not  provided  with  them.  From  their  very 
nature  they  must  be  liable  to  abuse  on  both 
sides.  If  Great  Britain  desires  a  mark  by 
which  she  can  know  her  own  subjects,  let  her 
give  them  an  earmark.  The  colors  that  float 
from  the  masthead  should  be  the  credentials 
of  our  seamen.  There  is  no  safety  to  us,  and 
the  gentlemen  have  shown  it,  but  in  the  rule 
that  all  who  sail  under  the  flag  (not  being  en 
emies)  are  protected  by  the  flag.  It  is  impos 
sible  that  this  country  should  ever  abandon 
the  gallant  tars  who  have  won  for  us  such 
splendid  trophies.  Let  me  suppose  that  the 
genius  of  Columbia  should  visit  one  of  them 
in  his  oppressor's  prison  and  attempt  to 
reconcile  him  to  his  forlorn  and  wretched 
condition.  She  would  say  to  him,  in  the  lan 
guage  of  gentlemen  on  the  other  side:  "Great 
Britain  intends  you  no  harm;  she  did  not  mean 
to  impress  you,  but  one  of  her  own  subjects; 
having  taken  you  by  mistake,  I  will  remon 
strate,  and  try  to  prevail  upon  her,  by  peace 
able  means,  to  release  you;  but  I  cannot,  my 
son,  fight  for  you.  "  If  he  did  not  consider 
this  mere  mockery,  the  poor  tar  would  address 
her  judgment,  and  say:  "  You  owe  me,  my  coun 
try,  protection;  I  owe  you,  in  return,  obedience. 
I  am  no  British  subject;  I  am  a  native  of 
92 


Clap 


old  Massachusetts,  where  lived  my  aged 
father,  my  wife,  my  children.  I  have  faithfully 
discharged  my  duty.  Will  you  refuse  to  do 
yours?"  Appealing  to  her  passions,  he  would 
continue:  "I  lost  this  eye  in  fighting  under 
Truxton,  with  the  Insurgents;  I  got  this  scar 
before  Tripoli;  I  broke  this  leg  on  board  the 
Constitution,  when  the  Guerriere  struck."  If 
she  remained  still  unmoved,  he  would  break 
out,  in  the  accents  of  mingled  distress  and 
despair, 

"  Hard,  hard  is  my  fate!     Once  I  freedom  enjoyed, 
Was  as  happy  as  happy  could  be ! 
Oh !  how  hard  is  my  fate,  how  galling  these  chains !" 

I  will  not  imagine  the  dreadful  catastrophe  to 
which  he  would  be  driven  by  an  abandonment 
of  him  to  his  own  oppressor.  It  will  not  be,  it 
cannot  be,  that  this  country  will  refuse  him 
protection. 

It  is  said  that  Great  Britain  has  been  always 
willing  to  make  a  satisfactory  arrangement  of 
the  subject  of  impressment,  and  that  Mr.  King 
had  nearly  concluded  one,  prior  to  his  depart 
ure  from  that  country.  Let  us  hear  what 
that  minister  says  upon  his  return  to  America. 
In  this  letter,  dated  at  New  York  in  July,  1803, 
after  giving  an  account  of  his  attempt  to  form 
an  arrangement  for  the  protection  of  our  sea 
men,  and  his  interviews  to  this  end  with  Lords 
Hawkesbury  and  St.  Vincent,  and  stating  that, 
when  he  had  supposed  the  terms  of  a  conven 
tion  were  agreed  upon,  a  new  pretension  was 
93 


American 


set  up  (the  mare  clausuni),  he  concludes:  "I 
regret  to  have  been  unable'  to  put  this  business 
on  a  satisfactory  footing,  knowing,  as  I  do,  its 
very  great  importance  to  both  parties;  but  I 
flatter  myself  that  I  have  not  misjudged  the 
interests  of  our  own  country  in  refusing  to 
sanction  a  principle  that  might  be  productive 
of  more  extensive  evils  than  those  it  was  our 
aim  to  prevent.  '  '  The  sequel  of  his  negotiation 
on  this  affair  is  more  fully  given  in  the  recent 
conversation  between  Mr.  Russell  and  Lord 
Castlereagh,  communicated  to  Congress  during 
its  present  session.  Lord  Castlereagh  says  to 
Mr.  Russell: 

"Indeed,  there  has  evidently  been  much 
misapprehension  on  this  subject;  an  erroneous 
belief  entertained  that  an  arrangement,  in  re 
gard  to  it,  has  been  nearer  an  accomplishment 
than  the  facts  will  warrant.  Even  our  friends 
in  Congress,  I  mean  those  who  are  opposed 
to  going  to  war  with  us,  have  been  so  confi 
dent  in  this  mistake  that  they  have  ascribed 
the  failure  of  such  an  arrangement  solely  to 
the  misconduct  of  the  American  government. 
This  error  probably  orginated  with  Mr.  King; 
for,  being  much  esteemed  here,  and  always  well 
received  by  the  persons  in  power,  he  seems  to 
have  misconstrued  their  readiness  to  listen 
to  his  representations,  and  their  warm  profes 
sions  of  a  disposition  to  remove  the  complaints 
of  America,  in  relation  to  impressment,  into 
a  supposed  conviction,  on  their  part,  of  the 
94 


Clap 


propriety  of  adopting  the  plan  which  he  had 
proposed.  But  Lord  St.  Vincent,  whom  he 
might  have  thought  he  had  brought  over  to  his 
opinions,  appears  never  for  a  moment  to  have 
ceased  to  regard  all  arrangements  on  the  subject 
to  be  attended  with  formidable  if  not  insur 
mountable  obstacles.  This  is  obvious  from 
a  letter  which  his  lordship  addressed  to  Sir 
William  Scott  at  the  time." 

Here  Lord  Castlereagh  read  a  letter,  con 
tained  in  the  records  before  him,  in  which  Lord 
St.  Vincent  states  to  Sir  William  Scott  the 
zeal  with  which  Mr.  King  had  assailed  him 
on  this  subject  of  impressment,  confesses  his 
own  perplexity  and  total  incompetency  to 
discover  any  practical  project  for  the  safe 
discontinuance  of  that  practice,  and  asks  for 
counsel  and  advice.  "  Thus  you  see,"  proceed 
ed  Lord  Castlereagh,  "that  the  confidence 
of  Mr.  King  on  this  subject  was  entirely  un 
founded." 

Thus  it  is  apparent  that  at  no  time  has 
the  enemy  been  willing  to  place  this  subject 
on  a  satisfactory  footing.  I  will  speak  here 
after  of  the  overtures  made  by  the  adminis 
tration  since  the  war. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Bleeker],  in  the  very  sensible  speech 
with  which  he  favored  the  committee,  made 
one  observation  which  did  not  comport  with 
his  usual  liberal  and  enlarged  views.  It  was 
that  those  who  are  most  interested  against 
95 


American 


the  practice  of  impressment  did  not  desire  a 
continuance  of  the  war  on  account  of  it  ;  while 
those  (the  Southern  and  Western  members) 
who  had  no  interest  in  it  were  the  zealous 
advocates  of  American  seamen.  It  was  a 
provincial  sentiment  unworthy  of  that  gentle 
man.  It  was  one  which,  in  a  change  of  con 
dition  he  would  not  express,  because  I  know 
he  could  not  feel  it.  Does  not  that  gentleman 
feel  for  the  unhappy  victims  of  the  tomahawk 
in  the  Western  wilds,  although  his  quarter 
of  the  Union  may  be  exempted  from  similar 
barbarities?  I  am  sure  he  does.  If  there 
be  a  description  of  rights  which  more  than  any 
other  should  unite  all  parties  in  all  quarters 
of  the  Union,  it  is  unquestionably  the  rights 
of  the  person.  No  matter  what  his  vocation, 
whether  he  seeks  subsistence  amid  the  dangers 
of  the  deep,  or  draws  them  from  the  bowels  of 
the  earth,  or  from  the  humblest  occupations 
of  mechanic  life;  wherever  the  sacred  rights 
of  an  American  freeman  are  assailed,  all  hearts 
ought  to  unite,  and  every  arm  should  be  braced 
to  vindicate  his  cause. 

The  gentleman  from  Delaware  sees  in  Can 
ada  no  object  worthy  of  conquest.  According 
to  him,  it  is  a  cold,  sterile,  and  inhospitable  re 
gion.  And  yet  such  are  the  allurements  which 
it  offers,  that  the  same  gentleman  apprehends 
that  if  it  be  annexed  to  the  United  States,  al 
ready  too  much  weakened  by  an  extension  of 
territory,  the  people  of  New  England  will  rush 
96 


Clap 


over  the  line  and  depopulate  that  section  of  the 
Union!  That  gentleman  considers  it  honest 
to  hold  Canada  as  a  kind  of  hostage,  to  regard 
it  as  a  sort  of  bond  for  the  good  behavior  of 
the  enemy.  But  he  will  not  enforce  the  bond. 
The  actual  conquest  of  that  country  would, 
according  to  him,  make  no  impression  upon 
the  enemy;  and  yet  the  very  apprehension  only 
of  such  a  conquest  would,  at  all  times,  have  a 
powerful  operation  upon  him !  Other  gentle 
men  consider  the  invasion  of  that  country  as 
wicked  and  unjustifiable.  Its  inhabitants  are 
represented  as  harmless  and  unoffending;  as 
connected  with  those  of  the  bordering  states 
by  a  thousand  tender  ties,  interchanging  acts  of 
kindness,  and  all  the  offices  of  good  neighbor 
hood.  Canada  innocent !  Canada  unoffend 
ing!  Is  it  not  in  Canada  that  the  tomahawk 
of  the  savage  has  been  molded  into  its  death 
like  form?  Has  it  not  been  from  Canadian 
magazines,  Maiden  and  others,  that  those  sup 
plies  have  been  issued  which  nourish  and  con 
tinue  the  Indian  hostilities, —  supplies  which 
have  enabled  the  savage  hordes  to  butcher  the 
garrison  of  Chicago,  and  to  commit  other  hor 
rible  excesses  and  murders  ?  Was  it  not  by  the 
joint  co-operation  of  Canadians  and  Indians  that 
a  remote  American  fort,  Michilimackinac,  was 
assailed  and  reduced  while  in  ignorance  of  a 
state  of  war?  But,  sir,  how  soon  have  the 
opposition  changed  their  tone !  When  the 
administration  was  striving,  by  the  operation 
97 


American 


of  peaceful  measures,  to  bring  Great  Britain 
back  to  a  sense  of  justice,  they  were  for  old- 
fashioned  war.  And  now  they  have  got  old-fash 
ioned  war,  their  sensibilities  are  cruelly  shocked, 
and  all  their  sympathies  lavished  upon  the 
harmless  inhabitants  of  the  adjoining  prov 
inces.  What  does  a  state  of  war  present  ?  The 
united  energies  of  one  people  arrayed  against 
the  combined  energies  of  another;  a  conflict  in 
which  each  party  aims  to  inflict  all  the  injury  it 
can,  by  sea  and  land,  upon  the  territories,  prop 
erty,  and  citizens  of  another;  subject  only  to 
the  rules  of  mitigated  war  practiced  by  civil 
ized  nations.  The  gentlemen  would  not  touch 
the  continental  provinces  of  the  enemy,  nor,  I 
presume,  for  the  same  reason,  her  possessions 
in  the  West  Indies.  The  same  humane  spirit 
would  spare  the  seamen  and  soldiers  of  the 
enemy.  The  sacred  person  of  his  majesty  must 
not  be  attacked;  for  the  learned  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side  are  quite  familiar  with  the  max 
im,  that  the  king  can  do  no  wrong.  Indeed, 
sir,  I  know  of  no  person  on  whom  we  may  make 
war,  upon  the  principles  of  the  honorable  gen 
tlemen,  but  Mr.  Stephen,  the  celebrated  author 
of  the  orders  in  council,  or  the  Board  of  Ad 
miralty,  who  authorize  and  regulate  the  practice 
of  impressment. 

The  disasters  of  the  war  admonish  us,  we  are 

told,  of  the  necessity  of  terminating  the  contest. 

If  our  achievements  by  land  have  been  less 

splendid  than  those  of  our  intrepid  seamen  by 

98 


€iap 


water,  it  is  not  because  the  American  soldier 
is  less  brave.  On  the  one  element,  organiza 
tion,  discipline,  and  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
their  duties  exist  on  the  part  of  the  officers  and 
their  men.  On  the  other,  almost  everything 
is  yet  to  be  acquired.  We  have,  however, 
the  consolation  that  our  country  abounds  with 
the  richest  materials,  and  that  in  no  instance, 
when  engaged  in  action,  have  our  arms  been 
tarnished.  At  Brownstown  and  at  Queens- 
town  the  valor  of  veterans  was  displayed  and 
acts  of  the  noblest  heroism  were  performed. 
It  is  true  that  the  disgrace  of  Detroit  remains 
to  be  wiped  off.  That  is  a  subject  on  which 
I  cannot  trust  my  feelings;  it  is  not  fitting  I 
should  speak.  But  this  much  I  will  say,  it 
was  an  event  which  no  human  foresight  could 
have  anticipated,  and  for  which  the  admin 
istration  cannot  be  justly  censured.  It  was 
the  parent  of  all  the  misfortunes  we  have  ex 
perienced  on  land.  But  for  it  the  Indian  war 
would  have  been,  in  a  great  measure,  prevent 
ed  or  terminated,  the  ascendency  on  Lake 
Erie  acquired,  and  the  war  pushed  on,  perhaps, 
to  Montreal.  With  the  exception  of  that 
event,  the  war,  even  upon  the  land,  has  been  at 
tended  by  a  series  of  the  most  brilliant  exploits, 
which,  whatever  interest  they  may  inspire  on 
this  side  of  the  mountains,  have  given  the 
greatest  pleasure  on  the  other.  The  expedi 
tion,  under  the  command  of  Governor  Edwards 
and  Colonel  Russell,  to  Lake  Pioria,  on  the 

99 


American 


Illinois,  was  completely  successful.  So  was 
that  of  Captain  Craig,  who,  it  is  said,  ascended 
that  river  still  higher.  General  Hopkins  de 
stroyed  the  prophet's  town.  We  have  just 
received  intelligence  of  the  gallant  enterprise 
of  Colonel  Campbell.  In  short,  sir,  the  Indian 
towns  have  been  swept  from  the  mouth  to 
the  source  of  the  Wabash,  and  a  hostile  coun 
try  has  been  penetrated  far  beyond  the  most 
daring  incursions  of  any  campaign  during  the 
former  Indian  war.  Never  was  more  cool, 
deliberate  bravery  displayed  than  that  by 
Newman's  party  from  Georgia.  And  the  cap 
ture  of  the  Detroit,  and  the  destruction  of 
the  Caledonia  (whether  placed  to  a  maritime 
or  land  account),  for  judgment,  skill,  and  cour 
age,  on  the  part  of  Lieutenant  Elliott,  have 
never  been  surpassed. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  elections  in  England 
are  in  favor  of  the  ministry,  and  that  those  in 
this  country  are  against  the  war.  If,  in  such  a 
cause  (saying  nothing  of  the  impurity  of  their 
elections),  the  people  of  that  country  have  ral 
lied  round  their  government,  it  affords  a  salu 
tary  lesson  to  the  people  here  ;  who,  at  all  haz 
ards  ought  to  support  theirs,  struggling  as  it  is 
to  maintain  our  just  rights.  But  the  people  here 
have  not  been  false  to  themselves;  a  great 
majority  approve  the  war,  as  is  envinced  by 
the  recent  re-election  of  the  chief  magistrate. 
Suppose  it  were  even  true  that  an  entire  sec 
tion  of  the  Union  were  opposed  to  the  war; 

100 


that  section  being  a  minority,  is  the  will  of  the 
majority  to  be  relinquished  ?  In  that  section 
the  real  strength  of  the  opposition  had  been 
greatly  exaggerated.  Vermont  has,  by  two  suc 
cessive  expressions  of  her  opinion,  approved 
the  declaration  of  war.  In  New  Hampshire, 
parties  are  so  nearly  equipoised,  that  out  of 
thirty  or  thirty-five  thousand  votes,  those  who 
approved  and  are  for  supporting  it  lost  the 
election  by  only  one  thousand  or  one  thou 
sand  five  hundred.  In  Massachusetts  alone 
have  they  obtained  any  considerable  accession. 
If  we  come  to  New  York,  we  shall  find  that 
other  and  local  causes  have  influenced  her 
elections. 

What  cause,  Mr.  Chairman,  which  existed 
for  declaring  the  war  has  been  removed  ?  We 
sought  indemnity  for  the  past  and  security  for 
the  future.  The  orders  in  council  are  suspend 
ed,  not  revoked;  no  compensation  for  spolia 
tions;  Indian  hostilities,  which  were  before 
secretly  instigated,  are  now  openly  encouraged  ; 
and  the  practice  of  impressment  unremittingly 
persevered  in  and  insisted  upon.  Yet  the  ad 
ministration  has  given  the  strongest  demonstra 
tions  of  its  love  of  peace.  On  the  29th  of 
June,  less  than  ten  days  after  the  declaration 
of  war,  the  Secretary  of  State  writes  to  Mr. 
Russell,  authorizing  him  to  agree  to  an  armis 
tice  upon  two  conditions  only,  and  what  are 
they  ?  That  the  orders  in  council  should  be  re 
pealed,  and  the  practice  of  impressing  American 
101 


jftemorafile  American 


seamen  cease,  those  already  impressed  being 
released.  The  proposition  was  for  nothing 
more  than  a  real  truce,  that  the  war  should  in 
fact  cease  on  both  sides.  Again,  on  the  2/th 
of  July,  one  month  later,  anticipating  a  possi 
ble  objection  to  these  terms,  reasonable  as  they 
are,  Mr.  Monroe  empowers  Mr.  Russell  to 
stipulate  in  general  terms  for  an  armistice, 
having  only  a  formal  understanding  on  these 
points.  In  return,  the  enemy  is  offered  a  pro 
hibition  of  the  employment  of  his  seamen  in 
our  service,  thus  removing  entirely  all  pretext 
for  the  practice  of  impressment.  The  very 
proposition  which  the  gentleman  from  Connec 
ticut  [Mr.  Pitkin]  contends  ought  to  be  made 
has  been  made.  How  are  these  pacific  advan 
ces  met  by  the  other  party  ?  Rejected  as  abso 
lutely  inadmissible  ;  cavils  are  indulged  about 
the  inadequacy  of  Mr.  Russell's  powers,  and 
the  want  of  an  act  of  Congress  is  intimated. 
And  yet  the  constant  usage  of  nations,  I  be 
lieve,  is,  where  the  legislation  of  one  party  is 
necessary  to  carry  into  effect  a  given  stipula 
tion,  to  leave  it  to  the  contracting  party  to  pro 
vide  the  requisite  laws.  If  he  fail  to  do  so,  it 
is  a  breach  of  good  faith,  and  becomes  the  sub 
ject  of  subsequent  remonstrance  by  the  injured 
party.  When  Mr.  Russell  renews  the  overture, 
in  what  was  intended  as  a  more  agreeable  form 
to  the  British  government,  Lord  Castlereagh  is 
not  content  with  a  simple  rejection,  but  clothes 
it  in  the  language  of  insult.  Afterward,  in  con- 
102 


J^enrp  Clap 


versation  with  Mr.  Russell,  the  moderation  of 
our  government  is  misinterpreted,  and  made 
the  occasion  of  a  sneer,  that  we  are  tired  of  the 
war.  The  proposition  of  Admiral  Warren  is 
submitted  in  a  spirit  not  more  pacific.  He 
is  instructed,  he  tells  us,  to  propose  that  the 
government  of  the  United  States  shall  instant 
ly  recall  their  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal 
against  British  ships,  together  with  all  orders 
and  instructions  for  any  acts  of  hostility  what 
ever  against  the  territories  of  his  majesty,  or 
the  persons  or  property  of  his  subjects.  That 
small  affair  being  settled,  he  is  further  author 
ized  to  arrange  as  to  the  revocation  of  the 
laws  which  interdict  the  commerce  and  ships 
of  war  of  his  majesty  from  the  harbors  and 
waters  of  the  United  States.  This  messenger 
of  peace  comes  with  one  qualified  concession 
in  his  pocket,  not  made  to  the  justice  of  our 
demands,  and  is  fully  empowered  to  receive 
our  homage,  a  contrite  retraction  of  all  our 
measures  adopted  against  his  master !  And, 
in  default,  he  does  not  fail  to  assure  us  the 
orders  in  council  are  to  be  forthwith  revived. 
The  administration,  still  anxious  to  terminate 
the  war,  suppresses  the  indignation  which  such 
a  proposal  ought  to  have  created,  and,  in  its  an 
swer,  concludes  by  informing  Admiral  Warren 
"that  if  there  be  no  objection  to  an  accom 
modation  of  the  difference  relating  to  impress 
ment,  in  the  mode  proposed,  other  than  the 
suspension  of  the  British  claim  to  impress- 
103 


jftemorafile  American 


ment  during  the  armistice,  there  can  be  none 
to  proceeding,  without  the  armistice,  to  an  im 
mediate  discussion  and  arrangement  of  an  ar 
ticle  on  that  subject."  Thus  it  has  left  the  door 
of  negotiation  unclosed,  and  it  remains  to  be 
seen  if  the  enemy  will  accept  the  invitation  ten 
dered  to  him.  The  honorable  gentleman  from 
North  Carolina  [Mr.  Pearson]  supposes  that 
if  Congress  would  pass  a  law  prohibiting  the 
employment  of  British  seamen  in  our  service, 
upon  condition  of  a  like  prohibition  on  their 
part,  and  repeal  the  act  of  non-importation, 
peace  would  immediately  follow.  Sir,  I  have 
no  doubt,  if  such  a  law  were  to  pass,  with  all 
the  requisite  solemnities,  and  the  repeal  to 
take  place,  Lord  Castlereagh  would  laugh  at 
our  simplicity.  No,  sir,  the  administration  has 
erred  in  the  steps  which  it  has  taken  to  restore 
peace,  but  its  error  has  been,  not  in  doing  too 
little,  but  in  betraying  too  great  a  solicitude 
for  that  event.  An  honorable  peace  is  attain 
able  only  by  an  efficient  war.  My  plan  would 
be  to  call  out  the  ample  resources  of  the  coun 
try,  give  them  a  judicious  direction,  prosecute 
the  war  with  the  utmost  vigor,  strike  wherever 
we  can  reach  the  enemy,  at  sea  or  on  land,  and 
negotiate  the  terms  of  a  peace  at  Quebec  or 
at  Halifax.  We  are  told  that  England  is  a 
proud  and  lofty  nation,  which,  disdaining  to 
wait  for  danger,  meets  it  half-way.  Haughty 
as  she  is,  we  once  triumphed  over  her,  and  if 
we  do  not  listen  to  the  counsels  of  timidity 
104 


Clap 


and  despair,  we  shall  again  prevail.  In  such 
a  cause,  with  the  aid  of  Providence,  we  must 
come  out  crowned  with  success;  but  if  we  fail, 
let  us  fail  like  men,  lash  ourselves  to  our  gal 
lant  tars,  and  expire  together  in  one  common 
struggle,  righting  for  free  trade  and  seamen's 
rights. 


105 


Daniel 

(1782-1852) 

THE    REPLY   TO    HAYNE 

[Delivered  January  26,  1830,  in  the  Senate.] 


MR.  PRESIDENT: 

WHEN  the  mariner  has  been  tossed 
for  many  days  in  thick  weather,  and 
on  an  unknown  sea,  he  naturally 
avails  himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm, 
the  earliest  glance  of  the  sun,  to  take  his  lati 
tude,  and  ascertain  how  far  the  elements  have 
driven  him  from  his  true  course.  Let  us  imi 
tate  this  prudence,  and,  before  we  float  far 
ther  on  the  waves  of  this  debate,  refer  to  the 
point  from  which  we  departed,  that  we  may 
at  least  be  able  to  conjecture  where  we  now 
are.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  resolution 
before  the  Senate. 

[The  secretary  read  the  resolution,  as  follows : — 
"Resolved,  that  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands 
be  instructed  to  inquire  and  report  the  quantity  of 
public  lands  remaining  unsold  within  each  state 
and  territory,  and  whether  it  be  expedient  to  limit 
for  a  certain  period  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  to 
such  lands  only  as  have  heretofore  been  offered  for 
sale  and  are  now  subject  to  entry  at  the  minimum 
price;  and  also,  whether  the  office  of  surveyor- 
general,  and  some  of  the  land  offices,  may  not  be 
abolished  without  detriment  to  the  public  interest; 
107 


jftemorafcle  American 


or  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt  measures  to 
hasten  the  sales  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys 
of  the  public  lands."] 

We  have  thus  heard,  sir,  what  the  resolu 
tion  is  which  is  actually  before  us  for  consid 
eration  ;  and  it  will  readily  occur  to  every  one, 
that  it  is  almost  the  only  subject  about  which 
something  has  not  been  said  in  the  speech, 
running  through  two  days,  by  which  the  Sen 
ate  has  been  entertained  by  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina.  Every  topic  in  the  wide 
range  of  our  public  affairs,  whether  past  or 
present,  —  everything,  general  or  local,  wheth 
er  belonging  to  national  politics  or  party  poli 
tics,  —  seems  to  have  attracted  more  or  less  of 
the  honorable  member's  attention,  save  only 
the  resolution  before  the  Senate.  He  has 
spoken  of  everything  but  the  public  lands; 
they  have  escaped  his  notice.  To  that  sub 
ject,  in  all  his  excursions,  he  has  not  paid  even 
the  cold  respect  of  a  passing  glance. 

When  this  debate,  sir,  was  to  be  resumed, 
on  Thursday  morning,  it  so  happened  that  it 
would  have  been  convenient  for  me  to  be  else 
where.  The  honorable  member,  however,  did 
not  incline  to  put  off  the  discussion  to  another 
day.  He  had  a  shot,  he  said,  to  return,  and 
he  wished  to  discharge  it.  That  shot,  sir, 
which  he  thus  kindly  informed  us  was  coming, 
that  we  might  stand  out  of  the  way,  or  prepare 
ourselves  to  fall  by  it  and  die  with  decency, 
has  now  been  received.  Under  all  advantages, 
108 


2Daniel 


and  with  expectation  awakened  by  the  tone 
which  preceded  it,  it  has  been  discharged,  and 
has  spent  its  force.  It  may  become  me  to  say 
no  more  of  its  effect  than  that,  if  nobody  is 
found,  after  all,  either  killed  or  wounded,  it 
is  not  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  human 
affairs  that  the  vigor  and  success  of  the  war 
have  not  quite  come  up  to  the  lofty  and  sound 
ing  phrase  of  the  manifesto. 

The  gentleman,  sir,  in  declining  to  post 
pone  the  debate,  told  the  Senate,  with  the  em 
phasis  of  his  hand  upon  his  heart,  that  there 
was  something  rankling  here,  which  he  wished 
to  relieve.  [Mr.  Hayne  rose,  and  disclaimed 
having  used  the  word  "rankling."]  It  would 
not,  Mr.  President,  be  safe  for  the  honorable 
member  to  appeal  to  those  around  him,  upon 
the  question  whether  he  did  in  fact  make  use 
of  that  word.  But  he  may  have  been  uncon 
scious  of  it.  At  any  rate,  it  is  enough  that  he 
disclaims  it.  But  still,  with  or  without  the 
use  of  that  particular  word,  he  had  yet  some 
thing  here,  he  said,  of  which  he  wished  to  rid 
himself  by  an  immediate  reply.  In  this  respect, 
sir,  I  have  a  great  advantage  over  the  honor 
able  gentleman.  There  is  nothing  here,  sir, 
which  gives  me  the  slightest  uneasiness; 
neither  fear,  nor  anger,  nor  that  which  is 
sometimes  more  troublesome  than  either,  the 
consciousness  of  having  been  in  the  wrong. 
There  is  nothing  either  originating  here  or 
now  received  here  by  the  gentleman's  shot. 
109 


American 


Nothing  originating  here,  for  I  had  not  the 
slightest  feeling  of  unkindness  towards  the  hon 
orable  member.  Some  passages,  it  is  true,  had 
occurred  since  our  acquaintance  in  this  body, 
which  I  could  have  wished  might  have  been 
otherwise;  but  I  had  used  philosophy  and  for 
gotten  them.  I  paid  the  honorable  member 
the  attention  of  listening  with  respect  to  his 
first  speech;  and  when  he  sat  down,  though 
surprised,  and  I  must  even  say  astonished,  at 
some  of  his  opinions,  nothing  was  farther  from 
my  intention  than  to  commence  any  personal 
warfare.  Through  the  whole  of  the  few  remarks 
I  made  in  answer,  I  avoided,  studiously  and 
carefully,  everything  which  I  thought  possible 
to  be  construed  into  disrespect.  And,  sir, 
while  there  is  thus  nothing  originating  here 
which  I  have  wished  at  any  time,  or  now  wish, 
to  discharge,  I  must  repeat,  also,  that  nothing 
has  been  received  here  which  rankles^  or  in 
any  way  gives  me  annoyance.  I  will  not  ac 
cuse  the  honorable  member  of  violating  the 
rules  of  civilized  war;  I  will  not  say  that  he 
poisoned  his  arrows.  But  whether  his  shafts 
were  or  were  not  dipped  in  that  which  would 
have  caused  rankling  if  they  had  reached  their 
destination,  there  was  not,  as  it  happened,  quite 
strength  enough  in  the  bow  to  bring  them  to 
their  mark.  If  he  wishes  now  to  gather  up 
those  shafts,  he  must  look  for  them  elsewhere; 
they  will  not  be  found  fixed  and  quivering  in 
the  object  at  which  they  were  aimed. 
no 


JBaniel 


The  honorable  member  complained  that  I 
had  slept  on  his  speech.  I  must  have  slept  on 
it,  or  not  slept  at  all.  The  moment  the  hon 
orable  member  sat  down,  his  friend  from 
Missouri  rose,  and,  with  much  honeyed  com 
mendation  of  the  speech,  suggested  that  the 
impressions  which  it  had  produced  were  too 
charming  and  delightful  to  be  disturbed  by 
other  sentiments  or  other  sounds,  and  proposed 
that  the  Senate  should  adjourn.  Would  it  have 
been  quite  amiable  in  me,  sir,  to  interrupt  this 
excellent  good  feeling  ?  Must  I  not  have  been 
absolutely  malicious,  if  I  could  have  thrust  my 
self  forward,  to  destroy  sensations  thus  pleas 
ing  ?  Was  it  not  much  better  and  kinder,  both 
to  sleep  upon  them  myself  and  allow  others 
also  the  pleasure  of  sleeping  upon  them  ?  But 
if  it  be  meant,  by  sleeping  upon  his  speech, 
that  I  took  time  to  prepare  a  reply  to  it,  it 
is  quite  a  mistake.  Owing  to  other  engage 
ments,  I  could  not  employ  even  the  interval 
between  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate  and 
its  meeting  the  next  morning,  in  attention 
to  the  subject  of  this  debate.  Nevertheless, 
sir,  the  mere  matter  of  fact  is  undoubtedly  true. 
I  did  sleep  on  the  gentleman's  speech,  and 
slept  soundly.  And  I  slept  equally  well  on 
his  speech  of  yesterday,  to  which  I  am  now 
replying.  It  is  quite  possible  that  in  this 
respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advantage  over 
the  honorable  member,  attributable,  doubtless, 
to  a  cooler  temperament  on  my  part;  for  in 
in 


American 


truth,  I  slept  upon  his  speeches  remarkably 
well. 

But  the  gentleman  inquires  why  he  was  made 
the  object  of  such  a  reply.  Why  was  he  sin 
gled  out?  If  an  attack  has  been  made  on  the 
East,  he,  he  assures  us,  did  not  begin  it;  it  was 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Missouri.  Sir, 
I  answered  the  gentleman's  speech  because  I 
happened  to  hear  it;  and  because,  also,  I  chose 
to  give  an  answer  to  that  speech,  which,  if  un 
answered,  I  thought  most  likely  to  produce  in 
jurious  impressions.  I  did  not  stop  to  inquire 
who  was  the  original  drawer  of  the  bill.  I 
found  a  responsible  indorser  before  me,  and 
it  was  my  purpose  to  hold  him  liable,  and  to 
bring  him  to  his  just  responsibility  without 
delay.  But,  sir,  this  interrogatory  of  the  hon 
orable  member  was  only  introductory  to  an 
other.  He  proceeded  to  ask  me  whether  I 
had  turned  upon  him,  in  this  debate,  from  the 
consciousness  that  I  should  find  an  overmatch, 
if  I  ventured  on  a  contest  with  his  friend 
from  Missouri.  If,  sir,  the  honorable  member, 
modestia  gratia,  had  chosen  thus  to  defer  to 
his  friend,  and  to  pay  him  a  compliment  with 
out  intentional  disparagement  to  others,  it 
would  have  been  quite  according  to  the  friendly 
courtesies  of  debate,  and  not  at  all  ungrateful 
to  my  own  feelings.  I  am  not  one  of  those, 
sir,  who  esteem  any  tribute  of  regard,  whether 
light  and  occasional,  or  more  serious  and 
deliberate,  which  may  be  bestowed  on  others,  as 
112 


2Daniel  Wtbgttt 


so  much  unjustly  withholden  from  themselves. 
But  the  tone  and  manner  of  the  gentleman's 
question  forbid  me  thus  to  interpret  it.  I  am 
not  at  liberty  to  consider  it  as  nothing  more 
than  a  civility  to  his  friend.  It  had  an  air 
of  taunt  arid  disparagement,  something  of  the 
loftiness  of  asserted  superiority,  which  does 
not  allow  me  to  pass  it  over  without  notice. 
It  was  put  as  a  question  for  me  to  answer, 
and  so  put  as  if  it  were  difficult  for  me  to 
answer,  whether  I  deemed  the  member  from 
Missouri  an  overmatch  for  myself  in  debate 
here.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  this  is  extraor 
dinary  language  and  an  extraordinary  tone, 
for  the  discussions  of  this  body. 

Matches  and  overmatches!  Those  terms 
are  more  applicable  elsewhere  than  here,  and 
fitter  for  other  assemblies  than  this.  Sir,  the 
gentleman  seems  to  forget  where  and  what  we 
are.  This  is  a  Senate, — a  Senate  of  equals,  of 
men  of  individual  honor  and  personal  charac 
ter,  and  of  absolute  independence.  We  know 
no  masters,  we  acknowledge  no  dictators. 
This  is  a  hall  for  mutual  consultation  and  dis 
cussion;  not  an  arena  for  the  exhibition  of 
champions.  I  offer  myself,  sir,  as  a  match  for 
no  man;  I  throw  the  challenge  of  debate  at  no 
man's  feet.  But  then,  sir,  since  the  honorable 
member  has  put  the  question  in  a  manner 
that  calls  for  an  answer,  I  will  give  him  an 
answer;  and  I  tell  him,  that,  holding  myself  to 
be  the  humblest  of  the  members  here,  I  yet 
"3 


American 


know  nothing  in  the  arm  of  his  friend  from 
Missouri,  either  alone  or  when  aided  by  the 
arm  of  his  friend  from  South  Carolina,  that 
need  deter  even  me  from  espousing  whatever 
opinions  I  may  choose  to  espouse,  from  de 
bating  whenever  I  may  choose  to  debate,  or 
from  speaking  whatever  I  may  see  fit  to  say, 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  Sir,  when  uttered 
as  matter  of  commendation  or  compliment,  I 
should  dissent  from  nothing  which  the  honor 
able  member  might  say  of  his  friend.  Still 
less  do  I  put  forth  any  pretensions  of  my  own. 
But  when  put  to  me  as  matter  of  taunt,  I  throw 
it  back,  and  say  to  the  gentleman,  that  he 
could  possibly  say  nothing  less  likely  than  such 
a  comparison  to  wound  my  pride  of  personal 
character.  The  anger  of  its  tone  rescued  the 
remark  from  intentional  irony,  which  other 
wise,  probably,  would  have  been  its  general  ac 
ceptation.  But,  sir,  if  it  be  imagined  that  by 
this  mutual  quotation  and  commendation;  if  it 
be  supposed  that,  by  casting  the  characters  of 
the  drama,  assigning  to  each  his  part,  to  one 
the  attack,  to  another  the  cry  of  onset;  or 
if  it  be  thought  that,  by  a  loud  and  empty 
vaunt  of  anticipated  victory,  any  laurels  are  to 
be  won  here;  if  it  be  imagined,  especially,  that 
any  or  all  these  things  will  shake  any  purpose 
of  mine,  —  I  can  tell  the  honorable  member, 
once  for  all,  that  he  is  greatly  mistaken,  and 
that  he  is  dealing  with  one  of  whose  temper 
and  character  he  has  yet  much  to  learn.  Sir, 
114 


2Daniri  Wtbgttt 


I  shall  not  allow  myself,  on  this  occasion,  I 
hope  on  no  occasion,  to  be  betrayed  into  any 
loss  of  temper;  but  if  provoked,  as  I  trust  I 
never  shall  be,  into  crimination  and  recrimina 
tion,  the  honorable  member  may  perhaps  find 
that,  in  that  contest,  there  will  be  blows  to 
take  as  well  as  blows  to  give;  that  others  can 
state  comparisons  as  significant,  at  least,  as 
his  own,  and  that  his  impunity  may  possibly 
demand  of  him  whatever  powers  of  taunt  and 
sarcasm  he  may  possess.  I  commend  him  to 
a  prudent  husbandry  of  his  resources. 

But,  sir,  the  Coalition  !  The  Coalition !  Ay, 
"the  murdered  Coalition!"  The  gentleman 
asks  if  I  were  led  or  frighted  into  this  debate 
by  the  specter  of  the  Coalition.  "Was  it 
the  ghost  of  the  murdered  Coalition,"  he  ex 
claims,  "which  haunted  the  member  from 
Massachusetts,  and  which,  like  the  ghost  of 
Ban  quo,  would  never  down  ?  "  "The  murdered 
Coalition !  "  Sir,  this  charge  of  a  coalition,  in 
reference  to  the  late  administration,  is  not  ori 
ginal  with  the  honorable  member.  It  did  not 
spring  up  in  the  Senate.  Whether  as  a  fact, 
as  an  argument,  or  as  an  embellishment,  it  is  all 
borrowed.  He  adopts  it,  indeed,  from  a  very 
low  origin,  and  a  still  lower  present  condition. 
It  is  one  of  the  thousand  calumnies  with  which 
the  press  teemed  during  an  excited  political 
canvass.  It  was  a  charge  of  which  there  was 
not  only  no  proof  or  probability,  but  which 
was  in  itself  wholly  impossible  to  be  true.  No 


American 


man  of  common  information  ever  believed  a 
syllable  of  it.  Yet  it  was  of  that  class  of  false 
hoods,  which,  by  continued  repetition,  through 
all  the  organs  of  detraction  and  abuse,  are  ca 
pable  of  misleading  those  who  are  already  far 
misled,  and  of  further  fanning  passion  already 
kindling  into  flame.  Doubtless  it  served  in  its 
day,  and  in  greater  or  less  degree,  the  end  de 
signed  by  it.  Having  done  that,  it  has  sunk 
into  the  general  mass  of  stale  and  loathed  cal 
umnies.  It  is  the  very  cast-off  slough  of  a 
polluted  and  shameless  press.  Incapable  of 
further  mischief,  it  lies  in  the  sewer,  lifeless 
and  despised.  It  is  not  now,  sir,  in  the  power 
of  the  honorable  member  to  give  it  dignity 
or  decency,  by  attempting  to  elevate  it,  and 
to  introduce  it  into  the  Senate.  He  cannot 
change  it  from  what  it  is,  an  object  of  general 
disgust  and  scorn.  On  the  contrary,  the  con 
tact,  if  he  choose  to  touch  it,  is  more  likely  to 
drag  him  down,  down,  to  the  place  where  it 
lies  itself. 

But,  sir,  the  honorable  member  was  not, 
for  other  reasons,  entirely  happy  in  his  allusion 
to  the  story  of  Banquo's  murder  and  Banquo's 
ghost.  It  was  not,  I  think,  the  friends,  but 
the  enemies,  of  the  murdered  Banquo  at  whose 
bidding  his  spirit  would  not  down.  The  hon 
orable  gentleman  is  fresh  in  his  reading  of  the 
English  classics,  and  can  put  me  right  if  I 
am  wrong;  but,  according  to  my  poor  recol 
lection,  it  was  at  those  who  had  begun  with 
116 


Daniel 


caresses  and  ended  with  foul  and  treacherous 
murder  that  the  gory  locks  were  shaken. 
The  ghost  of  Banquo,  like  that  of  Hamlet, 
was  an  honest  ghost.  It  disturbed  no  inno 
cent  man.  It  knew  where  its  appearance 
would  strike  terror,  and  who  would  cry  out, 
A  ghost!  It  made  itself  visible  in  the  right 
quarter,  and  compelled  the  guilty  and  the  con 
science-smitten,  and  none  others,  to  start, 
with, 

"  Pr'ythee,  see  there!  behold!  —  lookl  lo! 
If  I  stand  here,  I  saw  him.  " 

Their  eyeballs  were  seared  (was  it  not  so, 
sir?)  who  had  thought  to  shield  themselves 
by  concealing  their  own  hand,  and  laying  the 
imputation  of  the  crime  on  a  low  and  hireling 
agency  in  wickedness;  who  had  vainly  at 
tempted  to  stifle  the  workings  of  their  own 
coward  consciences  by  ejaculating  through 
white  lips  and  chattering  teeth,  "Thou  canst 
not  say  I  did  it ! "  I  have  misread  the  great 
poet  if  those  who  had  no  way  partaken  in  the 
deed  of  the  death,  either  found  that  they  were, 
or  fear  that  they  should  be,  pushed  from  their 
stools  by  the  ghost  of  the  slain,  or  exclaimed 
to  a  specter  created  by  their  own  fears  and 
their  own  remorse,  "Avaunt !  and  quit  our 
sight !  " 

There  is  another  particular,  sir,  in    which 

the  honorable  member's  quick  perception  of 

resemblances  might,  I  should  think,  have  seen 

something  in  the  story  of  Banquo   making  it 

117 


American 


not  altogether  a  subject  of  the  most  pleasant 
contemplation.  Those  who  murdered  Banquo, 
what  did  they  win  by  it  ?  Substantial  good  ? 
Permanent  power  ?  Or  disappointment,  rather, 
and  sore  mortification,  —  dust  and  ashes,  the 
common  fate  of  vaulting  ambition  overleaping 
itself?  Did  not  even-handed  justice  erelong 
commend  the  poisoned  chalice  to  their  own 
lips  ?  Did  they  not  soon  find  that  for  another 
they  had  "filed  their  mind"?  that  their  am 
bition,  though  apparently  for  the  moment  suc 
cessful,  had  but  put  a  barren  scepter  in  their 
grasp  ?  Ay,  sir, 

"A  barren  scepter  in  their  gripe, 
Thence  to  be  wrenched  with  an  unlineal  hand, 
No  son  of  theirs  succeeding." 

Sir,  I  need  pursue  the  allusion  no  farther. 
I  leave  the  honorable  gentleman  to  run  it  out  at 
his  leisure,  and  to  derive  from  it  all  the  grati 
fication  it  is  calculated  to  administer.  If  he 
finds  himself  pleased  with  the  associations, 
and  prepared  to  be  quite  satisfied,  though  the 
parallel  should  be  entirely  completed,  I  had 
almost  said,  I  am  satisfied  also;  but  that  I  shall 
think  of.  Yes,  sir,  I  will  think  of  that. 

In  the  course  of  my  observations  the  other 
day,  Mr.  President,  I  paid  a  passing  tribute  of 
respect  to  a  very  worthy  man,  Mr.  Dane  of 
Massachusetts.  It  so  happened  that  he  drew 
the  Ordinance  of  1787,  for  the  government 
of  the  Northwestern  Territory.  A  man  of  so 
much  ability,  and  so  little  pretense;  of  so 
118 


Daniel 


great  a  capacity  to  do  good,  and  so  unmixed 
a  disposition  to  do  it  for  its  own  sake;  a 
gentleman  who  had  acted  an  important  part, 
forty  years  ago,  in  a  measure  the  influence  of 
which  is  still  deeply  felt  in  the  very  matter 
which  was  the  subject  of  debate, —  might,  I 
thought,  receive  from  me  a  commendatory 
recognition.  But  the  honorable  member  was 
inclined  to  be  facetious  on  the  subject.  He 
was  rather  disposed  to  make  it  matter  of  ridi 
cule,  that  I  had  introduced  into  the  debate 
the  name  of  one  Nathan  Dane,  of  whom  he 
assures  us  he  had  never  before  heard.  Sir, 
if  the  honorable  member  had  never  before 
heard  of  Mr.  Dane,  I  am  sorry  for  it.  It 
shows  him  less  acquainted  with  the  public 
men  of  the  country  than  I  had  supposed.  Let 
me  tell  him,  however,  that  a  sneer  from  him 
at  the  mention  of  the  name  of  Mr.  Dane  is  in 
bad  taste.  It  may  well  be  a  high  mark  of  ambi 
tion,  sir,  either  with  the  honorable  gentleman 
or  myself,  to  accomplish  as  much  to  make  our 
names  known  to  advantage  and  remembered 
with  gratitude,  as  Mr.  Dane  has  accomplished. 
But  the  truth  is,  sir,  I  suspect,  that  Mr.  Dane 
lives  a  little  too  far  north.  He  is  of  Massa 
chusetts,  and  too  near  the  north  star  to  be 
reached  by  the  honorable  gentleman's  tele 
scope.  If  his  sphere  had  happened  to  range 
south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  he  might, 
probably,  have  come  within  the  scope  of  his 
vision. 

119 


American 


I  spoke,  sir,  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
which  prohibits  slavery,  in  all  future  times, 
northwest  of  the  Ohio,  as  a  measure  of  great 
wisdom  and  foresight,  and  one  which  had 
been  attended  with  highly  beneficial  and  per 
manent  consequences.  I  suppose  that,  on  this 
point,  no  two  gentlemen  in  the  Senate  could 
entertain  different  opinions.  But  the  simple 
expression  of  this  sentiment  has  led  the  gen 
tleman  not  only  into  a  labored  defense  of 
slavery,  in  the  abstract  and  on  principle,  but 
also  into  a  warm  accusation  against  me,  as 
having  attacked  the  system  of  domestic  slav 
ery  now  existing  in  the  Southern  States.  For 
all  this,  there  was  not  the  slightest  founda 
tion,  in  anything  said  or  intimated  by  me.  I 
did  not  utter  a  single  word  which  any  ingenu 
ity  could  torture  into  an  attack  on  the  slav 
ery  of  the  South.  I  said,  only,  that  it  was 
highly  wise  and  useful,  in  legislating  for  the 
Northwestern  country  while  it  was  yet  a  wild 
erness,  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves; 
and  I  added,  that  I  presumed  there  was  no 
reflecting  and  intelligent  person,  in  the  neigh 
boring  state  of  Kentucky,  who  would  doubt 
that,  if  the  same  prohibition  had  been  extend 
ed,  at  the  same  early  period,  over  that  com 
monwealth,  her  strength  and  population  would, 
at  this  day,  have  been  far  greater  than  they 
are.  If  these  opinions  be  thought  doubtful, 
they  are  nevertheless,  I  trust,  neither  extraor 
dinary  nor  disrespectful.  They  attack  nobody 

120 


2DanieI 


and  menace  nobody.  And  yet,  sir,  the  gentle 
man's  optics  have  discovered,  even  in  the  mere 
expression  of  this  sentiment,  what  he  calls  the 
very  spirit  of  the  Missouri  question !  He  rep 
resents  me  as  making  an  onset  on  the  whole 
South,  and  manifesting  a  spirit  which  would 
interfere  with  and  disturb  their  domestic  con 
dition  ! 

Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  surprises 
me  than  as  it  is  committed  here,  and  commit 
ted  without  the  slightest  pretense  of  ground 
for  it.  I  say  it  only  surprises  me  as  being 
done  here;  for  I  know  full  well  that  it  is, 
and  has  been,  the  settled  policy  of  some  per 
sons  in  the  South,  for  years,  to  represent  the 
people  of  the  North  as  disposed  to  interfere 
with  them  in  their  own  exclusive  and  peculiar 
concerns.  This  is  a  delicate  and  sensitive 
point  in  Southern  feeling;  and  of  late  years  it 
has  always  been  touched,  and  generally  with 
effect,  whenever  the  object  has  been  to  unite 
the  whole  South  against  Northern  men  or 
Northern  measures.  This  feeling,  always  care 
fully  kept  alive,  and  maintained  at  too  intense 
a  heat  to  admit  discrimination  or  reflection,  is 
a  lever  of  great  power  in  our  political  ma 
chine.  It  moves  vast  bodies,  and  gives  to 
them  one  and  the  same  direction.  But  it  is 
without  adequate  cause,  and  the  suspicion 
which  exists  is  wholly  groundless.  There  is 
not,  and  never  has  been,  a  disposition  in  the 
North  to  interfere  with  these  interests  of  the 
121 


American 


South.  Such  interference  has  never  been 
supposed  to  be  within  the  power  of  govern 
ment;  nor  has  it  been  in  any  way  attempted. 
The  slavery  of  the  South  has  always  been  re 
garded  as  a  matter  of  domestic  policy,  left 
with  the  states  themselves,  and  with  which 
the  federal  government  had  nothing  to  do. 
Certainly,  sir,  I  am,  and  ever  have  been,  of  that 
opinion.  The  gentleman,  indeed,  argues  that 
slavery,  in  the  abstract,  is  no  evil.  Most  assur 
edly  I  need  not  say  I  differ  with  him,  altogether 
and  most  widely,  on  that  point.  I  regard  do 
mestic  slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  evils, 
both  moral  and  political.  But  whether  it  be  a 
malady,  and  whether  it  be  curable,  and  if  so, 
by  what  means  ;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  whether 
it  be  the  vulnus  immedicabile  of  the  social  sys 
tem,  I  leave  it  to  those  whose  right  and  duty  it 
is  to  inquire  and  to  decide.  And  this,  I  believe, 
sir,  is,  and  uniformly  has  been,  the  sentiment 
of  the  North.  Let  us  look  a  little  at  the  his 
tory  of  this  matter. 

When  the  present  Constitution  was  submit 
ted  for  the  ratification  of  the  people,  there 
were  those  who  imagined  that  the  powers  of 
the  government  which  it  proposed  to  establish 
might,  in  some  possible  mode,  be  exerted  in 
measures  tending  to  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
This  suggestion  would  of  course  attract  much 
attention  in  the  Southern  conventions.  In  that 
of  Virginia,  Governor  Randolph  said  :  — 

"I  hope  there  is  none  here,  who,  considering 
122 


SDaniei 


the  subject  in  the  calm  light  of  philosophy, 
will  make  an  objection  dishonorable  to  Vir 
ginia;  that,  at  the  moment  they  are  securing 
the  rights  of  their  citizens,  an  objection  is 
started,  that  there  is  a  spark  of  hope  that 
those  unfortunate  men  now  held  in  bondage 
may,  by  the  operation  of  the  general  govern 
ment,  be  made  free." 

At  the  very  first  Congress,  petitions  on  the 
subject  were  presented,  if  I  mistake  not, 
from  different  states.  The  Pennsylvania  soci 
ety  from  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery  took 
a  lead,  and  laid  before  Congress  a  memorial, 
praying  Congress  to  promote  the  abolition  by 
such  powers  as  it  possessed.  This  memorial 
was  referred,  in  the  House  of  Representatives, 
to  a  select  committee,  consisting  of  Mr.  Foster 
of  New  Hampshire,  Mr.  Gerry  of  Mas 
sachusetts,  Mr.  Huntington  of  Connecticut, 
Mr.  Lawrence  of  New  York,  Mr.  Sinnickson 
of  New  Jersey,  Mr.  Hartley  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  Mr.  Parker  of  Virginia;  all  of  them,  sir, 
as  you  will  observe,  Northern  men  but  the 
last.  This  committee  made  a  report,  which 
was  referred  to  a  committee  of  the  whole 
house,  and  there  considered  and  discussed  for 
several  days;  and  being  amended,  although 
without  material  alteration,  it  was  made  to 
express  three  distinct  propositions  on  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery  and  the  slave-trade.  First,  in 
the  words  of  the  Constitution,  that  Congress 
could  not,  prior  to  the  year  1808,  prohibit  the 
123 


American 


migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as 
any  of  the  states  then  existing  should  think 
proper  to  admit;  and  secondly,  that  Congress 
had  authority  to  restrain  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  from  carrying  on  the  African 
slave-trade,  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  for 
eign  countries.  On  this  proposition,  our  early 
laws  against  those  who  engage  in  that  traffic 
are  founded.  The  third  proposition,  and  that 
which  bears  on  the  present  question,  was  ex 
pressed  in  the  following  terms  :  — 

"Resolved,  that  Congress  have  no  authority 
to  interfere  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  or 
in  the  treatment  of  them  in  any  of  the  states; 
it  remaining  with  the  several  states  alone  to 
provide  rules  and  regulations  therein  which 
humanity  and  true  policy  may  require." 

This  resolution  received  the  sanction  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  so  early  as  March, 
1790.  And  now,  sir,  the  honorable  member 
will  allow  me  to  remind  him,  that  not  only 
were  the  select  committee  who  reported  the 
resolution,  with  a  single  exception,  all  Northern 
men,  but  also  that,  of  the  members  then  com 
posing  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  large 
majority,  I  believe  nearly  two-thirds,  were 
Northern  men  also. 

The  House  agreed  to  insert  these  resolutions 
in  its  journal,  and  from  that  day  to  this  it  has 
never  been  maintained  or  contended  at  the 
North,  that  Congress  had  any  authority  to 
regulate  or  interfere  with  the  condition  of 
124 


SDaniel 


slaves  in  the  several  states.  No  Northern 
gentleman,  to  my  knowledge,  has  moved  any 
such  question  in  either  house  of  Congress. 

The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears  they 
might  have  entertained,  were  allayed  and  quiet 
ed  by  this  early  decision;  and  so  remained  till 
they  were  excited  afresh,  without  cause,  but 
for  collateral  and  indirect  purposes. 

When  it  became  necessary,  or  was  thought 
so  by  some  political  persons,  to  find  an  unvary 
ing  ground  for  the  exclusion  of  Northern  men 
from  confidence  and  from  lead  in  the  affairs 
of  the  republic,  then,  and  not  till  then,  the  cry 
was  raised,  and  the  feeling  industriously  excited, 
that  the  influence  of  Northern  men  in  public 
counsels  would  endanger  the  relation  of  mas 
ter  and  slave.  For  myself,  I  claim  no  other 
merit  than  that  this  gross  and  enormous  injus 
tice  towards  the  whole  North  has  not  wrought 
upon  me  to  change  my  opinions  or  my  political 
conduct.  I  hope  I  am  above  violating  my  prin 
ciples,  even  under  the  smart  of  injury  and  false 
imputations.  Unjust  suspicions  and  unde 
served  reproach,  whatever  pain  I  may  experi 
ence  from  them,  will  not  induce  me,  I  trust,  to 
overstep  the  limits  of  constitutional  duty,  or  to 
encroach  on  the  rights  of  others.  The  domes 
tic  slavery  of  the  Southern  States  I  leave  where 
I  find  it, — in  the  hands  of  their  own  govern 
ments.  It  is  their  affair,  not  mine.  Nor  do 
I  complain  of  the  peculiar  effect  which  the 
magnitude  of  that  population  has  had  in  the 
125 


American 


distribution  of  power  under  this  federal  gov 
ernment.  We  know,  sir,  that  the  represen 
tation  of  the  states  in  the  other  house  is  not 
equal.  We  know  that  great  advantage  in  that 
respect  is  enjoyed  by  the  slave-holding  states; 
and  we  know,  too,  that  the  intended  equivalent 
for  that  advantage,  that  is  to  say,  the  imposition 
of  direct  taxes  in  the  same  ratio,  has  become 
merely  nominal,  the  habit  of  the  government 
being  almost  invariably  to  collect  its  revenue 
from  other  sources  and  in  other  modes.  Nev 
ertheless,  I  do  not  complain;  nor  would  I 
countenance  any  movement  to  alter  this  ar 
rangement  of  representation.  It  is  the  original 
bargain,  the  compact;  let  it  stand;  let  the 
advantage  of  it  be  fully  enjoyed.  The  Union 
itself  is  too  full  of  benefit  to  be  hazarded  in 
propositions  for  changing  its  original  basis.  I 
go  for  the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  for  the 
Union  as  it  is.  But  I  am  resolved  not  to  sub 
mit  in  silence  to  accusations,  either  against 
myself  individually  or  against  the  North,  wholly 
unfounded  and  unjust,  —  accusations  which  im 
pute  to  us  a  disposition  to  evade  the  constitu 
tional  compact,  and  to  extend  the  power  of  the 
government  over  the  internal  laws  and  domestic 
condition  of  the  states.  All  such  accusations, 
wherever  and  whenever  made,  all  insinuations 
of  the  existence  of  any  such  purposes,  I  know 
and  feel  to  be  groundless  and  injurious. 

And  we  must  confide  in  Southern  gentlemen 
themselves;   we   must   trust   to  those    whose 
126 


2Daniel 


integrity  of  heart  and  magnanimity  of  feel 
ing  will  lead  them  to  a  desire  to  maintain 
and  disseminate  truth,  and  who  possess  the 
means  of  its  diffusion  with  the  Southern  pub 
lic  ;  we  must  leave  it  to  them  to  disabuse  that 
public  of  its  prejudices.  But  in  the  mean  time, 
for  my  own  part,  I  shall  continue  to  act  justly, 
whether  those  towards  whom  justice  is  exer 
cised  receive  it  with  candor  or  with  con 
tumely. 

Having  had  occasion  to  recur  to  the  Ordi 
nance  of  1/87,  in  order  to  defend  myself 
against  the  inferences  which  the  honorable 
member  has  chosen  to  draw,  from  my  former 
observations  on  that  subject,  I  am  not  willing 
now  entirely  to  take  leave  of  it  without  another 
remark.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  that  pa 
per  expresses  just  sentiments  on  the  great 
subject  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  Such 
sentiments  were  common,  and  abound  in  all 
our  state  papers  of  that  day.  But  this  Or 
dinance  did  that  which  was  not  so  common, 
and  which  is  not  even  now  universal;  that  is, 
it  set  forth  and  declared  it  to  be  a  high  and 
binding  duty  of  government  itself  to  support 
schools  and  advance  the  means  of  education, 
on  the  plain  reason  that  religion,  morality, 
and  knowledge  are  necessary  to  good  govern 
ment,  and  to  the  happiness  of  mankind.  One 
observation  further.  The  important  provision 
incorporated  into  the  Constitution  of  the  Unit 
ed  States,  and  into  several  of  those  of  the 
127 


jftemorafcle  American 


states,  and  recently,  as  we  have  seen,  adopted 
into  the  reformed  constitution  of  Virginia, 
restraining  legislative  power  in  questions  of 
private  right,  and  from  impairing  the  obligation 
of  contracts,  is  first  introduced  and  established, 
as  far  as  I  am  informed,  as  matter  of  express 
written  constitutional  law,  in  this  Ordinance 
of  1/87.  And  I  must  add,  also,  in  regard  to 
the  author  of  the  Ordinance,  who  has  not  had 
the  happiness  to  attract  the  gentleman's  notice 
heretofore,  nor  to  avoid  his  sarcasm  now, 
that  he  was  chairman  of  that  select  committee 
of  the  old  Congress,  whose  report  first  ex 
pressed  the  strong  sense  of  that  body,  that 
the  old  Confederation  was  not  adequate  to  the 
exigencies  of  the  country,  and  recommended 
to  the  states  to  send  delegates  to  the  conven 
tion  which  formed  the  present  Contitution. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  transfer  from 
the  North  to  the  South  the  honor  of  this 
exclusion  of  slavery  from  the  Northwestern 
Territory.  The  journal,  without  argument  or 
comment,  refutes  such  attempts.  The  cession 
by  Virginia  was  made  in  March,  1784.  On  the 
1  9th  of  April  following,  a  committee,  consist 
ing  of  Messrs.  Jefferson,  Chase,  and  Howell, 
reported  a  plan  for  a  temporary  govern 
ment  of  the  territory,  in  which  was  this  article: 
"That,  after  the  year  1800,  there  shall  be  nei 
ther  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  in  any 
of  the  said  states,  otherwise  than  in  punish 
ment  of  crimes  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
128 


Daniel 


been  convicted."  Mr.  Spaight  of  North  Caro 
lina  moved  to  strike  out  this  paragraph.  The 
question  was  put,  according  to  the  form  then 
practiced,  "Shall  these  words  stand  as  part  of 
the  plan?"  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  seven  states,  voted  in 
the  affirmative;  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  South 
Carolina,  in  the  negative.  North  Carolina  was 
divided.  As  the  consent  of  nine  states  was 
necessary,  the  words  could  not  stand,  and  were 
struck  out  accordingly.  Mr.  Jefferson  voted 
for  the  clause,  but  was  overruled  by  his  col 
leagues. 

In  March  of  the  next  year  (1/85),  Mr.  King 
of  Massachusetts,  seconded  by  Mr.  Ellery  of 
Rhode  Island,  proposed  the  formerly  rejected 
article,  with  this  addition:  "And  that  this  reg 
ulation  shall  be  an  article  of  compact,  and 
remain  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  con 
stitutions  between  the  thirteen  original  states, 
and  each  of  the  states  described  in  the  re 
solve."  On  this  clause,  which  provided  the 
adequate  and  thorough  security,  the  eight 
Northern  States  at  that  time  voted  affirmative 
ly,  and  the  four  Southern  States  negatively. 
The  votes  of  nine  states  were  not  yet  ob 
tained,  and  thus  the  provision  was  again 
rejected  by  the  Southern  States.  The  perse 
verance  of  the  North  held  out,  and  two  years 
afterwards  the  object  was  attained.  It  is  no 
derogation  from  the  credit,  whatever  that 
129 


American 


may  be,  of  drawing  the  Ordinance,  that  its 
principles  had  before  been  prepared  and  dis 
cussed,  in  the  form  of  resolutions.  If  one 
should  reason  in  that  way,  what  would  be 
come  of  the  distinguished  honor  of  the  author 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  ?  There 
is  not  a  sentiment  in  that  paper  which  had 
not  been  voted  and  resolved  in  the  assemblies 
and  other  popular  bodies  in  the  country,  over 
and  over  again. 

But  the  honorable  member  has  now  found 
out  that  this  gentleman,  Mr.  Dane,  was  a 
member  of  the  Hartford  Convention.  How 
ever  uninformed  the  honorable  member  may 
be  of  characters  and  occurrences  at  the  North, 
it  would  seem  that  he  has  at  his  elbow,  on  this 
occasion,  some  high-minded  and  lofty  spirit, 
some  magnanimous  and  true-hearted  monitor, 
possessing  the  means  of  local  knowledge,  and 
ready  to  supply  the  honorable  member  with 
everything,  down  even  to  forgotten  and  moth- 
eaten  twopenny  pamphlets,  which  may  be 
used  to  the  disadvantage  of  his  own  country. 
But  as  to  the  Hartford  Convention,  sir,  allow 
me  to  say,  that  the  proceedings  of  that  body 
seem  now  to  be  less  read  and  studied  in  New 
England  than  farther  south.  They  appear  to 
be  looked  to,  not  in  New  England,  but  else 
where,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  how  far  they 
may  serve  as  a  precedent.  But  they  will  not 
answer  the  purpose;  they  are  quite  too  tame. 
The  latitude  in  which  they  originated  was  too 
130 


2Daniel  Wtbgttt 


cold.  Other  conventions,  of  more  recent  ex 
istence,  have  gone  a  whole  bar's  length  beyond 
it.  The  learned  doctors  of  Colleton  and  Abbe 
ville  have  pushed  their  commentaries  on  the 
Hartford  collect  so  far,  that  the  original  text- 
writers  are  thrown  entirely  into  the  shade. 
I  have  nothing  to  do,  sir,  with  the  Hartford 
Convention.  Its  journal,  which  the  gentle 
man  has  quoted,  I  never  read.  So  far  as 
the  honorable  member  may  discover  in  its 
proceedings  a  spirit  in  any  degree  resembling 
that  which  was  avowed  and  justified  in  those 
other  conventions  to  which  I  have  alluded,  or 
so  far  as  those  proceedings  can  be  shown  to 
be  disloyal  to  the  Constitution,  or  tending 
to  disunion,  as  far  I  shall  be  as  ready  as 
any  one  to  bestow  on  them  reprehension  and 
censure. 

Having  dwelt  long  on  this  convention,  and 
other  occurrences  of  that  day,  in  the  hope, 
probably  (which  will  not  be  gratified),  that  I 
should  leave  the  course  of  this  debate  to  follow 
him  at  length  in  those  excursions,  the  honorable 
member  returned,  and  attempted  another  ob 
ject.  He  referred  to  a  speech  of  mine  in  the 
other  house,  the  same  which  I  had  occasion  to 
allude  to  myself,  the  other  day;  and  has  quoted 
a  passage  or  two  from  it,  with  a  bold,  though 
uneasy  and  laboring,  air  of  confidence,  as  if  he 
had  detected  in  me  an  inconsistency.  Judg 
ing  from  the  gentleman's  manner,  a  stranger 
to  the  course  of  the  debate  and  to  the  point 


American 


in  discussion  would  have  imagined,  from  so 
triumphant  a  tone,  that  the  honorable  member 
was  about  to  overwhelm  me  with  a  manifest 
contradiction.  Any  one  who  heard  him,  and 
who  had  not  heard  what  I  had,  in  fact,  previ 
ously  said,  must  have  thought  me  routed  and 
discomfited,  as  the  gentleman  had  promised. 
Sir,  a  breath  blows  all  this  triumph  away. 
There  is  not  the  slightest  difference  in  the 
purport  of  my  remarks  on  the  two  occasions. 
What  I  said  here  on  Wednesday  is  in  exact 
accordance  with  the  opinion  expressed  by  me 
in  the  other  house  in  1825.  Though  the  gen 
tleman  had  the  metaphysics  of  Hudibras, 
though  he  were  able 

"  To  sever  and  divide 
A  hair  'twixt  north  and  northwest  side," 

he  could  yet  not  insert  his  metaphysical  scis 
sors  between  the  fair  reading  of  my  remarks 
in  1825  and  what  I  said  here  last  week.  There 
is  not  only  no  contradiction,  no  difference,  but, 
in  truth,  too  exact  a  similarity,  both  in  thought 
and  language,  to  be  entirely  in  just  taste. 
I  had  myself  quoted  the  same  speech;  had  re 
curred  to  it,  and  spoke  with  it  open  before  me; 
and  much  of  what  I  said  was  little  more  than 
a  repetition  from  it.  In  order  to  make  finish 
ing  work  with  this  alleged  contradiction,  per 
mit  me  to  recur  to  the  origin  of  this  debate,  and 
review  its  course.  This  seems  expedient,  and 
may  be  done  as  well  now  as  at  any  time. 
Well,  then,  its  history  is  this:  The  honor- 
132 


2DanieI 


able  member  from  Connecticut  moved  a  reso 
lution,  which  constitutes  the  first  branch  of 
that  which  is  before  us ;  that  is  to  say,  a  reso 
lution  instructing  the  committee  on  public 
lands  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  limit 
ing,  for  a  certain  period,  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands,  to  such  as  have  heretofore  been  offered 
for  sale;  and  whether  sundry  offices  connected 
with  the  sales  of  the  lands  might  not  be 
abolished  without  detriment  to  the  public  ser 
vice.  In  the  progress  of  the  discussion  which 
arose  on  this  resolution,  an  honorable  member 
from  New  Hampshire  moved  to  amend  the 
resolution,  so  as  entirely  to  reverse  its  object; 
that  is,  to  strike  it  all  out,  and  insert  a  direc 
tion  to  the  committee  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  adopting  measures  to  hasten 
the  sales,  and  extend  more  rapidly  the  surveys, 
of  the  lands. 

The  honorable  member  from  Maine  sug 
gested  that  both  those  propositions  might 
well  enough  go  for  consideration  to  the  com 
mittee;  and  in  this  state  of  the  question,  the 
member  from  South  Carolina  addressed  the 
Senate  in  his  first  speech.  He  rose,  he  said, 
to  give  us  his  own  free  thoughts  on  the  public 
lands.  I  saw  him  rise  with  pleasure,  and 
listened  with  expectation,  though  before  he 
concluded  I  was  filled  with  surprise.  Certainly, 
I  was  never  more  surprised  than  to  find  him 
following  up,  to  the  extent  he  did,  the  senti 
ments  and  opinions  which  the  gentleman  from 


American 


Missouri  had  put  forth,  and  which  it  is  known 
he  has  long  entertained. 

I  need  not  repeat  at  large  the  general  topics 
of  the  honorable  gentleman's  speech.  When 
he  said  yesterday  that  he  did  not  attack  the 
Eastern  states,  he  certainly  must  have  forgot 
ten  not  only  particular  remarks,  but  the  whole 
drift  and  tenor  of  his  speech;  unless  he 
means  by  not  attacking,  that  he  did  not  com 
mence  hostilities,  but  that  another  had  preceded 
him  in  the  attack.  He,  in  the  first  place, 
disapproved  of  the  whole  course  of  the  govern 
ment,  for  forty  years,  in  regard  to  its  disposi 
tion  of  the  public  lands;  and  then,  turning 
northward  and  eastward,  and  fancying  he  had 
found  a  cause  for  alleged  narrowness  and 
niggardliness  in  the  "accursed  policy  "  of  the 
tariff,  to  which  he  represented  the  people  of 
New  England  as  wedded,  he  went  on  for  a 
full  hour  with  remarks  the  whole  scope  of 
which  was  to  exhibit  the  results  of  this  policy, 
in  feelings  and  in  measures  unfavorable  to  the 
West.  I  thought  his  opinions  unfounded  and 
erroneous,  as  to  the  general  course  of  the  gov 
ernment,  and  venture  to  reply  to  them. 

The  gentleman  had  remarked  on  the  anal 
ogy  of  other  cases,  and  quoted  the  conduct  of 
European  governments  towards  their  own  sub 
jects  settling  on  this  continent,  as  in  point,  to 
show  that  we  had  been  harsh  and  rigid  in  sell 
ing,  when  we  should  have  given  the  public 
lands  to  settlers  without  price.  I  thought  the 
134 


2Danid 


honorable  member  had  suffered  his  judgment 
to  be  betrayed  by  a  false  analogy ;  that  he  was 
struck  with  an  appearance  of  resemblance 
where  there  was  no  real  similitude.  I  think 
so  still.  The  first  settlers  of  North  America 
were  enterprising  spirits,  engaged  in  private 
adventure,  or  fleeing  from  tyranny  at  home. 
When  arrived  here,  they  were  forgotten  by 
the  mother  country,  or  remembered  only  to  be 
oppressed.  Carried  away  again  by  the  appear 
ance  of  analogy,  or  struck  with  the  eloquence 
of  the  passage,  the  honorable  member  yester 
day  observed,  that  the  conduct  of  government 
towards  the  Western  emigrants,  or  my  repre 
sentation  of  it,  brought  to  his  mind  a  cele 
brated  speech  in  the  British  Parliament.  It 
was,  sir,  the  speech  of  Colonel  Barre.  On  the 
question  of  the  stamp  act,  or  tea  tax,  I  forget 
which,  Colonel  Barre  had  heard  a  member  on 
the  treasury  bench  argue  that  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  being  British  colonists, 
planted  by  the  maternal  care,  nourished  by  the 
indulgence  and  protected  by  the  arms  of  Eng 
land,  would  not  grudge  their  mite  to  relieve  the 
mother  country  from  the  heavy  burden  under 
which  she  groaned.  The  language  of  Colonel 
Barre,  in  reply  to  this,  was  :  "They  planted  by 
your  care  ?  Your  oppression  planted  them  in 
America.  They  fled  from  your  tyranny,  and 
grew  by  your  neglect  of  them.  So  soon  as  you 
began  to  care  for  them,  you  showed  your  care 
by  sending  persons  to  spy  out  their  liberties, 
135 


American 


misrepresent  their  character,  prey  upon  them, 
and  eat  out  their  substance." 

And  how  does  the  honorable  gentleman 
mean  to  maintain  that  language  like  this  is 
applicable  to  the  conduct  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States  towards  the  Western  emi 
grants,  or  to  any  representation  given  by  me  of 
that  conduct  ?  Were  the  settlers  in  the  West 
driven  thither  by  our  oppression  ?  Have  they 
flourished  only  by  our  neglect  of  them  ?  Has 
the  government  done  nothing  but  prey  upon 
them,  and  eat  out  their  substance  ?  Sir,  this 
fervid  eloquence  of  the  British  speaker,  just 
when  and  where  it  was  uttered,  and  fit  to  re 
main  an  exercise  for  the  schools,  is  not  a  little 
out  of  place,  when  it  is  brought  thence  to  be 
applied  here  to  the  conduct  of  our  own  country 
towards  her  own  citizens.  From  America  to 
England,  it  may  be  true;  from  Americans  to 
their  own  government,  it  would  be  strange 
language.  Let  us  leave  it,  to  be  recited  and 
declaimed  by  our  boys  against  a  foreign  na 
tion;  not  introduce  it  here,  to  recite  and  de 
claim  ourselves  against  our  own. 

But  I  come  to  the  point  of  the  alleged  con 
tradiction.  In  my  remark  on  Wednesday,  I 
contended  that  we  could  not  give  away  gratui 
tously  all  the  public  lands;  that  we  held  them 
in  trust;  that  the  government  had  solemnly 
pledged  itself  to  dispose  of  them  as  a  common 
fund  for  the  common  benefit,  and  to  sell  and 
settle  them  as  its  discretion  should  dictate. 
136 


2Daniel 


Now,  sir,  what  contradiction  does  the  gentle 
man  find  to  this  sentiment  in  the  speech  of 
1825?  He  quotes  me  as  having  then  said  that 
we  ought  not  to  hug  these  lands  as  a  very  great 
treasure.  Very  well,  sir;  supposing  me  to  be 
accurately  reported  in  that  expression,  what  is 
the  contradiction?  I  have  not  now  said  that 
we  should  hug  these  lands  as  a  favorite  source 
of  pecuniary  income.  No  such  thing.  It  is 
not  my  view.  What  I  have  said,  and  what  I 
do  say,  is,  that  they  are  a  common  fund,  to  be 
disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit,  to  be  sold 
at  low  prices  for  the  accommodation  of  settlers, 
keeping  the  object  of  settling  the  lands  as  much 
in  view  as  that  of  raising  money  from  them. 
This  I  say  now,  and  this  I  have  always  said. 
Is  this  hugging  them  as  a  favorite  treasure? 
Is  there  no  difference  between  hugging  and 
hoarding  this  fund,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  great 
treasure,  and,  on  the  other,  of  disposing  of  it  at 
low  prices,  placing  the  proceeds  in  the  general 
treasury  of  the  Union  ?  My  opinion  is,  that  as 
much  is  to  be  made  of  the  land  as  fairly  and 
reasonably  may  be,  selling  it  all  the  while  at 
such  rates  as  to  give  the  fullest  effect  to  settle 
ment.  This  is  not  giving  it  all  away  to  the 
states,  as  the  gentleman  would  propose;  nor 
is  it  hugging  the  fund  closely  and  tenaciously, 
as  a  favorite  treasure  ;  but  it  is,  in  my  judgment, 
a  just  and  wise  policy,  perfectly  according  with 
all  the  various  duties  which  rest  on  government. 
So  much  for  my  contradiction.  And  what  is 
137 


American 


it?  Where  is  the  ground  of  the  gentleman's 
triumph?  What  inconsistency  in  a  word  or 
doctrine  has  he  been  able  to  detect?  Sir,  if 
this  be  a  sample  of  that  discomfiture  with  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  threatened  me,  com 
mend  me  to  the  word  "  discomfiture  "  for 
the  rest  of  my  life. 

But,  after  all,  this  is  not  the  point  of  the  de 
bate;  and  I  must  now  bring  the  gentleman 
back  to  what  is  the  point. 

The  real  question  between  me  and  him  is, 
Has  the  doctrine  been  advanced  at  the  South 
or  the  East,  that  the  population  of  the  West 
should  be  retarded,  or  at  least  need  not  be 
hastened,  on  account  of  its  effect  to  drain  off 
the  people  from  the  Atlantic  states?  Is  this 
doctrine,  as  has  been  alleged,  of  Eastern  origin  ? 
That  is  the  question.  Has  the  gentleman  found 
anything  by  which  he  can  make  good  his  accu 
sation?  I  submit  to  the  Senate,  that  he  has 
entirely  failed  ;  and,  as  far  as  this  debate  has 
shown,  the  only  person  who  has  advanced 
such  sentiments  is  a  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  and  a  friend  of  the  honorable  mem 
ber  himself.  The  honorable  gentleman  has 
given  no  answer  to  this;  there  is  none  which 
can  be  given.  The  simple  fact,  while  it  requires 
no  comment  to  enforce  it,  defies  all  argument 
to  refute  it.  I  could  refer  to  the  speeches  of 
another  Southern  gentleman,  in  years  before, 
of  the  same  general  character,  and  to  the  same 
effect,  as  that  which  has  been  quoted  ;  but  I 
138 


Daniel 


will  not  consume  the  time  of  the  Senate  by  the 
reading  of  them. 

So,  then,  sir,  New  England  is  guiltless  of  the 
policy  of  retarding  Western  population,  and  of 
all  envy  and  jealousy  of  the  growth  of  the  new 
states.  Whatever  there  be  of  that  policy  in 
the  country,  no  part  of  it  is  hers.  If  it  has  a 
local  habitation,  the  honorable  member  has 
probably  seen  by  this  time  where  to  look  for  it; 
and  if  it  now  has  received  a  name,  he  has  him 
self  christened  it. 

We  approach,  at  length,  sir,  to  a  more  im 
portant  part  of  the  honorable  gentleman's  ob 
servations.  Since  it  does  not  accord  with  my 
views  of  justice  and  policy  to  give  away  the 
public  lands  altogether,  as  a  mere  matter  of 
gratuity,  I  am  asked  by  the  honorable  gentle 
man  on  what  ground  it  is  that  I  consent  to 
vote  them  away  in  particular  instances.  How, 
he  inquires,  do  I  reconcile  with  these  professed 
sentiments  my  support  of  measures  appropri 
ating  portions  of  the  lands  to  particular  roads, 
particular  canals,  particular  rivers,  and  par 
ticular  institutions  of  education  in  the  West  ? 
This  leads,  sir,  to  the  real  and  wide  difference 
in  political  opinion  between  the  honorable  gen 
tleman  and  myself.  On  my  part,  I  look  upon 
all  these  objects  as  connected  with  the  common 
good,  fairly  embraced  in  its  object  and  its 
terms;  he,  on  the  contrary,  deems  them  all, 
if  good  at  all,  only  local  good.  This  is  our 
difference.  The  interrogatory  which  he  pro- 

139 


American 


ceeded  to  put  at  once  explains  this  difference. 
"What  interest,"  asks  he,  "  has  South  Carolina 
in  a  canal  in  Ohio  ?"  Sir,  this  very  question  is 
full  of  significance.  It  develops  the  gentle 
man's  whole  political  system;  and  its  answer 
expounds  mine.  Here  we  differ.  I  look  upon 
a  road  over  the  Alleghanies,  a  canal  round  the 
falls  of  the  Ohio,  or  a  canal  or  railway  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Western  waters,  as  being 
an  object  large  and  extensive  enough  to  be 
fairly  said  to  be  for  the  common  benefit.  The 
gentleman  thinks  otherwise,  and  this  is  the  key 
to  his  construction  of  the  powers  of  the  gov 
ernment.  He  may  well  ask  what  interest  has 
South  Carolina  in  a  canal  in  Ohio.  On  his 
system,  it  is  true,  she  has  no  interest.  On  that 
system,  Ohio  and  Carolina  are  different  govern 
ments  and  different  countries;  connected  here, 
it  is  true,  by  some  slight  and  ill-defined  bond 
of  union,  but  in  all  main  respects  separate  and 
diverse.  On  that  system,  Carolina  has  no  more 
interest  in  a  canal  in  Ohio  than  in  Mexico. 
The  gentleman,  therefore,  only  follows  out  his 
own  principles;  he  does  no  more  than  arrive 
at  the  natural  conclusions  of  his  own  doctrines  ; 
he  only  announces  the  true  results  of  that  creed 
which  he  has  adopted  himself,  and  would  per 
suade  others  to  adopt,  when  he  thus  declares 
that  South  Carolina  has  no  interest  in  a  public 
work  in  Ohio. 

Sir,  we  narrow-minded  people  of  New  Eng 
land  do  not  reason  thus.    Our  notion  of  things 
140 


2Daniel 


is  entirely  different.  We  look  upon  the  states, 
not  as  separated,  but  as  united.  We  love  to 
dwell  on  that  union,  and  on  the  mutual  happi 
ness  which  it  has  so  much  promoted,  and  the 
common  renown  which  it  has  so  greatly  con 
tributed  to  acquire.  In  our  contemplation, 
Carolina  and  Ohio  are  parts  of  the  same  coun 
try  ;  states  united  under  the  same  general  gov 
ernment,  having  interests,  common,  associated, 
intermingled.  In  whatever  is  within  the  prop 
er  sphere  of  the  constitutional  power  of  this 
government,  we  look  upon  the  states  as  one. 
We  do  not  impose  geographical  limits  to  our 
patriotic  feeling  or  regard;  we  do  not  follow 
rivers  and  mountains  and  lines  of  latitude 
to  find  boundaries  beyond  which  public  im 
provements  do  not  benefit  us.  We  who  come 
here,  as  agents  and  representatives  of  these 
narrow-minded  and  selfish  men  of  New  Eng 
land,  consider  ourselves  as  bound  to  regard 
with  an  equal  eye  the  good  of  the  whole,  in 
whatever  is  within  our  powers  of  legislation. 
Sir,  if  a  railroad  or  canal  beginning  in  South 
Carolina  and  ending  in  South  Carolina  ap 
peared  to  me  to  be  of  national  importance 
and  national  magnitude,  believing,  as  I  do,  that 
the  power  of  government  extends  to  the  en 
couragement  of  works  of  that  description;  if  I 
were  to  stand  up  here  and  ask,  What  interest 
has  Massachusetts  in  a  railroad  in  South  Car 
olina  ? — I  should  not  be  willing  to  face  my  con 
stituents.  These  same  narrow-minded  men 
141 


American 


would  tell  me  that  they  had  sent  me  to  act 
for  the  whole  country,  and  that  one  who  pos 
sessed  too  little  comprehension,  either  of  intel 
lect  or  feeling,  one  who  was  not  large  enough, 
both  in  mind  and  in  heart,  to  embrace  the 
whole,  was  not  fit  to  be  intrusted  with  the 
interest  of  any  part. 

Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the  powers  of 
the  government  by  unjustifiable  construction, 
nor  to  exercise  any  not  within  a  fair  interpre 
tation.  But  when  it  is  believed  that  a  power 
does  exist,  then  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  be  ex 
ercised  for  the  general  benefit  of  the  whole.  So 
far  as  respects  the  exercise  of  such  a  power, 
the  states  are  one.  It  was  the  very  object 
of  the  Constitution  to  create  unity  of  interests 
to  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  the  general  gov 
ernment.  In  war  and  peace  we  are  one;  in 
commerce,  one;  because  the  authority  of  the 
general  government  reaches  to  war  and  peace, 
and  to  the  regulation  of  commerce.  I  have 
never  seen  any  more  difficulty  in  erecting  light 
houses  on  the  lakes  than  on  the  ocean;  in  im 
proving  the  harbors  of  inland  seas,  than  if  they 
were  within  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide;  or 
in  removing  obstructions  in  the  vast  streams 
of  the  West,  more  than  in  any  work  to  facili 
tate  commerce  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  If  there 
be  any  power  for  one,  there  is  power  also  for 
the  other;  and  they  are  all  and  equally  for  the 
common  good  of  the  country. 

There  are  other  objects,  apparently  more 
142 


Daniel 


local,  or  the  benefit  of  which  is  less  general, 
towards  which,  nevertheless,  I  have  concurred 
with  others,  to  give  aid  by  donations  of  land. 
It  is  proposed  to  construct  a  road,  in  or 
through  one  of  the  new  states,  in  which  this 
government  possesses  large  quantities  of  land. 
Have  the  United  States  no  right,  or,  as  a  great 
and  untaxed  proprietor,  are  they  under  no  ob 
ligation,  to  contribute  to  an  object  thus  calcu 
lated  to  promote  the  common  good  of  all  the 
proprietors,  themselves  included  ?  And  even 
with  respect  to  education,  which  is  the  extreme 
case,  let  the  question  be  considered.  In  the 
first  place,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  made  mat 
ter  of  compact  with  these  states  that  they 
should  do  their  part  to  promote  education.  In 
the  next  place,  our  whole  system  of  land  laws 
proceeds  on  the  idea  that  education  is  for  the 
common  good;  because,  in  every  division,  a 
certain  portion  is  uniformly  reserved  and  ap 
propriated  for  the  use  of  schools.  And  finally, 
have  not  these  new  states  singularly  strong 
claims  founded  on  the  ground  already  stated, 
that  the  government  is  a  great  untaxed  proprie 
tor,  the  ownership  of  the  soil  ?  It  is  a  consid 
eration  of  great  importance,  that  probably  there 
is  in  no  part  of  the  country  or  of  the  world 
so  great  call  for  the  means  of  education  as  in 
these  new  states,  owing  to  the  vast  numbers 
of  persons  within  those  ages  in  which  educa 
tion  and  instruction  are  usually  received,  if  re 
ceived  at  all.  This  is  the  natural  consequence 

143 


American 


of  recency  of  settlement  and  rapid  increase. 
The  census  of  these  states  shows  how  great  a 
proportion  of  the  whole  population  occupies 
the  classes  between  infancy  and  manhood. 
These  are  the  wide  fields,  and  here  is  the  deep 
and  quick  soil  for  the  seeds  of  knowledge  and 
virtue  ;  and  this  is  the  favored  season,  the  very 
spring-time  for  sowing  them.  Let  them  be  dis 
seminated  without  stint.  Let  them  be  scattered 
with  a  bountiful  hand,  broadcast.  Whatever  the 
government  can  fairly  do  towards  these  objects, 
in  my  opinion,  ought  to  be  done. 

These,  sir,  are  the  grounds,  succinctly  stat 
ed,  on  which  my  votes  for  grants  of  lands  for 
particular  objects  rest;  while  I  maintain,  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  is  all  a  common  fund  for  the 
common  benefit.  And  reasons  like  these,  I 
presume,  have  influenced  the  votes  of  other 
gentlemen  from  New  England.  Those  who 
have  a  different  view  of  powers  of  govern 
ment,  of  course,  come  to  different  conclusions, 
on  these  as  on  other  questions.  I  observed, 
when  speaking  on  this  subject  before,  that  if 
we  looked  to  any  measure,  whether  for  a  road, 
a  canal,  or  anything  else,  intended  for  the  im 
provement  of  the  West,  it  would  be  found 
that,  if  the  New  England  ayes  were  struck  out 
of  the  lists  of  votes,  the  Southern  noes  would 
always  have  rejected  the  measure.  The  truth 
of  this  has  not  been  denied,  and  cannot  be 
denied.  In  stating  this,  I  thought  it  just  to 
ascribe  it  to  the  constitutional  scruples  of  the 
144 


2Daniri  Wtbgttt 


South,  rather  than  to  any  other  less  favorable 
or  less  charitable  cause.  But  no  sooner  had  I 
done  this,  than  the  honorable  gentleman  asks 
if  I  reproach  him  and  his  friends  with  their 
constitutional  scruples.  Sir,  I  reproach  no 
body.  I  stated  a  fact,  and  gave  the  most 
respectful  reason  for  it  that  occurred  to  me. 
The  gentleman  cannot  deny  the  fact;  he  may, 
if  he  choose,  disclaim  the  reason.  It  is  not 
long  since  I  had  occasion,  in  presenting  a  peti 
tion  from  his  own  state,  to  account  for  its  be 
ing  intrusted  to  my  hands,  by  saying  that  the 
constitutional  opinions  of  the  gentleman  and 
his  worthy  colleague  prevented  them  from 
supporting  it.  Sir,  did  I  state  this  as  matter 
of  reproach?  Far  from  it.  Did  I  attempt  to 
find  any  other  cause  than  an  honest  one  for 
these  scruples  ?  Sir,  I  do  not.  It  did  not  be 
come  me  to  doubt  or  to  insinuate  that  the 
gentleman  had  either  changed  his  sentiments, 
or  that  he  had  made  up  a  set  of  constitutional 
opinions  accommodated  to  any  particular  com 
bination  of  political  occurrences.  Had  I  done 
so,  I  should  have  felt  that,  while  I  was  entitled 
to  little  credit  in  thus  questioning  other  peo 
ple's  motives,  I  justified  the  whole  world  in 
suspecting  my  own.  But  how  has  the  gentle 
man  returned  this  respect  for  others'  opin 
ions  ?  His  own  candor  and  justice,  how  have 
they  been  exhibited  towards  the  motives  of 
others,  while  he  has  been  at  so  much  pains  to 
maintain,  what  nobody  has  disputed,  the  purity 
145 


American 


of  his  own?  Why,  sir,  he  has  asked  when, 
and  how,  and  why  New  England  votes  were 
found  going  for  measures  favorable  to  the 
West.  He  has  demanded  to  be  informed 
whether  all  this  did  not  begin  in  1825,  and 
while  the  election  of  President  was  still  pend 
ing. 

Sir,  to  these  questions  retort  would  be  justi 
fied;  and  it  is  both  cogent  and  at  hand.  Never 
theless,  I  will  answer  the  inquiry,  not  by  retort, 
but  by  facts.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman  when, 
and  how,  and  why  New  England  has  supported 
measures  favorable  to  the  West.  I  have  al 
ready  referred  to  the  early  history  of  the  gov 
ernment,  to  the  first  acquisition  of  the  lands, 
to  the  original  laws  for  disposing  of  them,  and 
for  governing  the  territories  where  they  lie; 
and  have  shown  the  influence  of  New  England 
men  and  New  England  principles  in  all  these 
leading  measures.  I  should  not  be  pardoned 
were  I  to  go  over  that  ground  again.  Coming 
to  more  recent  times,  and  to  measures  of  a  less 
general  character,  I  have  endeavored  to  prove 
that  everything  of  this  kind,  designed  for 
Western  improvement,  has  depended  on  the 
votes  of  New  England  ;  all  this  is  true  beyond 
the  power  of  contradiction.  And  now,  sir, 
there  are  two  measures  to  which  I  will  refer, 
not  so  ancient  as  to  belong  to  the  early  history 
of  the  public  lands,  and  not  so  recent  as  to  be 
on  this  side  of  the  period  when  the  gentleman 
charitably  imagines  a  new  direction  may  have 
146 


SDaniel  Wtbgttt 


been  given  to  New  England  feeling  and  New 
England  votes.  These  measures,  and  the  New 
England  votes  in  support  of  them,  may  be 
taken  as  samples  and  specimens  of  all  the  rest. 
In  1820  (observe,  Mr.  President,  in  1820) 
the  people  of  the  West  besought  Congress  for 
a  reduction  in  the  price  of  lands.  In  favor  of 
that  reduction,  New  England,  with  a  delega 
tion  of  forty  members  in  the  other  house,  gave 
thirty-three  votes,  and  one  only  against  it. 
The  four  Southern  states,  with  more  than 
fifty  members,  gave  thirty-two  votes  for  it  and 
seven  against  it.  Again,  in  1821  (observe 
again,  sir,  the  time),  the  law  passed  for  the 
relief  of  the  purchasers  of  the  public  lands. 
This  was  a  measure  of  vital  importance  to  the 
West,  and  more  especially  to  the  Southwest. 
It  authorized  the  relinquishment  of  contracts 
for  lands  which  had  been  entered  into  at  high 
prices,  and  a  reduction  in  other  cases  of  not 
less  than  thirty- seven  and  a  half  per  cent  on 
the  purchase  money.  Many  millions  of  dol 
lars,  six  or  seven,  I  believe,  probably  much 
more,  were  relinquished  by  this  law.  On  this 
bill,  New  England,  with  her  forty  members,  gave 
more  affirmative  votes  than  the  four  Southern 
states,  with  their  fifty-two  or  fifty-three  mem 
bers.  These  two  are  far  the  most  important 
general  measures  respecting  the  public  lands 
which  have  been  adopted  within  the  last  twen 
ty  years.  They  took  place  in  1820  and  1821. 
That  is  the  time  when. 

147 


American 


As  to  the  manner  how,  the  gentleman  already 
sees  that  it  was  by  voting  in  solid  column  for 
the  required  relief;  and  lastly,  as  to  the  cause 
why,  I  tell  the  gentleman  it  was  because  the 
members  from  New  England  thought  the  meas 
ures  just  and  salutary;  because  they  entertained 
towards  the  West  neither  envy,  hatred,  nor 
malice;  because  they  deemed  it  becoming  them, 
as  just  and  enlightened  public  men,  to  meet 
the  exigency  which  had  arisen  in  the  West 
with  the  appropriate  measure  of  relief;  because 
they  felt  it  due  to  their  own  characters,  and 
the  characters  of  their  New  England  prede 
cessors  in  this  government,  to  act  towards  the 
new  states  in  the  spirit  of  a  liberal,  patronizing, 
magnanimous  policy.  So  much,  sir,  for  the 
cause  why;  and  I  hope  that  by  this  time, 
sir,  the  honorable  gentleman  is  satisfied;  if 
not,  I  do  not  know  when  or  how  or  why  he 
ever  will  be. 

Having  recurred  to  these  two  important 
measures,  in  answer  to  the  gentleman's  in 
quiries,  I  must  now  beg  permission  to  go  back 
to  a  period  somewhat  earlier,  for  the  purpose 
of  still  further  showing  how  much,  or  rather 
how  little,  reason  there  is  for  the  gentleman's 
insinuation  that  political  hopes  or  fears,  or 
party  associations,  were  the  grounds  of  these 
New  England  votes.  And  after  what  has  been 
said,  I  hope  it  may  be  forgiven  me  if  I  allude 
to  some  political  opinions  and  votes  of  my 
own,  of  very  little  public  importance  certainly, 
148 


2Daniel 


but  which,  from  the  time  at  which  they  were 
given  and  expressed,  may  pass  for  good  wit 
nesses  on  this  occasion. 

This  government,  Mr.  President,  from  its 
origin  to  the  peace  of  1815,  had  been  too  much 
engrossed  with  various  other  important  con 
cerns  to  be  able  to  turn  its  thoughts  inward,  and 
look  to  the  development  of  its  vast  internal 
resources.  In  the  early  part  of  President 
Washington's  administration,  it  was  fully  oc 
cupied  with  completing  its  own  organization, 
providing  for  the  public  debt,  defending  the 
frontiers,  and  maintaining  domestic  peace. 
Before  the  termination  of  that  administration, 
the  fires  of  the  French  Revolution  blazed  forth, 
as  from  a  new-opened  volcano,  and  the  whole 
breadth  of  the  ocean  did  not  secure  us  from 
its  effects.  The  smoke  and  the  cinders  reached 
us,  though  not  the  burning  lava.  Difficult  and 
agitating  questions,  embarrassing  to  govern 
ment  and  dividing  public  opinion,  sprung  out  of 
the  new  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  and  were 
succeeded  by  others,  and  yet  again  by  others, 
equally  embarrassing  and  equally  exciting  divi 
sion  and  discord,  through  the  long  series 
of  twenty  years,  till  they  finally  issued  in  the 
war  with  England.  Down  to  the  close  of  that 
war,  no  distinct,  marked,  and  deliberate  at 
tention  had  been  given,  or  could  have  been 
given,  to  the  internal  condition  of  the  coun 
try,  its  capacities  of  improvement,  or  the 
constitutional  power  of  the  government  in 
149 


American 


regard  to  objects  connected  with  such  im 
provement. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought  about  an 
entirely  new  and  a  most  interesting  state  of 
things;  it  opened  to  us  other  prospects  and 
suggested  other  duties.  We  ourselves  were 
changed,  and  the  whole  world  was  changed. 
The  pacification  of  Europe,  after  June,  1815, 
assumed  a  firm  and  permanent  aspect.  The 
nations  evidently  manifested  that  they  were 
disposed  for  peace.  Some  agitation  of  the 
waves  might  be  expected,  even  after  the  storm 
had  subsided;  but  the  tendency  was,  strongly 
and  rapidly,  towards  settled  repose. 

It  so  happened,  sir,  that  I  was  at  that  time  a 
member  of  Congress,  and,  like  others,  natural 
ly  turned  my  thoughts  to  the  contemplation  of 
the  recently  altered  condition  of  the  country 
and  of  the  world.  It  appeared  plainly  enough 
to  me,  as  well  as  to  wiser  and  more  experi 
enced  men,  that  the  policy  of  the  government 
would  naturally  take  a  start  in  a  new  direction; 
because  new  directions  would  necessarily  be 
given  to  the  pursuits  and  occupations  of  the 
people.  We  had  pushed  our  commerce  far  and 
fast,  under  the  advantage  of  a  neutral  flag.  But 
there  were  now  no  longer  flags,  either  neutral 
or  belligerent.  The  harvest  of  neutrality  had 
been  great,  but  we  had  gathered  it  all.  With 
the  peace  of  Europe,  it  was  obvious  there 
would  spring  up  in  her  circle  of  nations  a  re 
vived  and  invigorated  spirit  of  trade  and  a 
150 


SDaniel 


new  activity  in  all  the  business  and  objects  of 
civilized  life.  Hereafter,  our  commercial  gains 
were  to  be  earned  only  by  success  in  a  close 
and  intense  competition.  Other  nations  would 
produce  for  themselves,  and  carry  for  them 
selves,  and  manufacture  for  themselves,  to  the 
full  extent  of  their  abilities.  The  crops  of 
our  plains  would  no  longer  sustain  European 
armies,  nor  our  ships  longer  supply  those 
whom  war  had  rendered  unable  to  supply 
themselves.  It  was  obvious  that,  under  these 
circumstances,  the  country  would  begin  to 
survey  itself,  and  to  estimate  its  own  capacity 
of  improvement. 

And  this  improvement, —  how  was  it  to  be 
accomplished,  and  who  was  to  accomplish  it  ? 
We  were  ten  or  twelve  millions  of  people, 
spread  over  almost  half  a  world.  We  were 
more  than  twenty  states,  some  stretching 
along  the  same  seaboard,  some  along  the  same 
line  of  inland  frontier,  and  others  on  opposite 
banks  of  the  same  vast  rivers.  Two  consider 
ations  at  once  presented  themselves  with  great 
force,  in  looking  at  this  state  of  things.  One 
was  that  that  great  branch  of  improvement 
which  consisted  in  furnishing  new  facilities  of 
intercourse  necessarily  ran  into  different  states 
in  every  leading  instance,  and  would  benefit  the 
citizens  of  all  such  states.  No  one  state, 
therefore,  in  such  cases,  would  assume  the 
whole  expense,  nor  was  the  co-operation  of 
several  states  to  be  expected.  Take  the  in- 


American 


stance  of  the  Delaware  breakwater.  It  will 
cost  several  millions  of  money.  Would  Penn 
sylvania  alone  ever  have  constructed  it  ?  Cer 
tainly  never,  while  this  Union  lasts,  because  it 
is  not  for  her  sole  benefit.  Would  Pennsyl 
vania,  New  Jersey,  and  Delaware  have  united 
to  accomplish  it  at  their  joint  expense  ?  Cer 
tainly  not,  for  the  same  reason.  It  could  not 
be  done,  therefore,  but  by  the  general  gov 
ernment.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  large 
inland  undertakings,  except  that,  in  them,  gov 
ernment,  instead  of  bearing  the  whole  expense, 
co-operates  with  others  who  bear  a  part.  The 
other  consideration  is,  that  the  United  States 
have  the  means.  They  enjoy  the  revenues  de 
rived  from  commerce,  and  the  states  have  no 
abundant  and  easy  sources  of  public  income. 
The  custom-houses  fill  the  general  treasury, 
while  the  states  have  scanty  resources,  except 
by  resort  to  heavy  direct  taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought  it 
necessary  to  settle,  at  least  for  myself,  some 
definite  notions  with  respect  to  the  powers  of 
the  government  in  regard  to  internal  affairs. 
It  may  not  savor  too  much  of  self-commenda 
tion  to  remark,  that,  with  this  object,  I  consid 
ered  the  Constitution,  its  judicial  construction, 
its  contemporaneous  exposition,  and  the  whole 
history  of  the  legislation  of  Congress  under  it; 
and  I  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  govern 
ment  had  power  to  accomplish  sundry  objects, 
or  aid  in  their  accomplishment,  which  are  now 
152 


Daniel 


commonly  spoken  of  as  internal  improve 
ments.  That  conclusion,  sir,  may  have  been 
right,  or  it  may  have  been  wrong.  I  am  not 
about  to  argue  the  grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say 
only,  that  it  was  adopted  and  acted  on  even 
so  early  as  in  1816.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  I 
made  up  my  opinion,  and  determined  on  my 
intended  course  of  political  conduct,  on  these 
subjects,  in  the  Fourteenth  Congress,  in  1816. 
And  now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  further  to  say, 
that  I  made  up  these  opinions,  and  entered  on 
this  course  of  political  conduct,  Teucro  duce. 
Yes,  sir,  I  pursued  in  all  this  a  South  Carolina 
track  on  the  doctrines  of  internal  improvement. 
South  Carolina,  as  she  was  then  represented  in 
the  other  house,  set  forth  in  1816  under  a  fresh 
and  leading  breeze,  and  I  was  among  the  fol 
lowers.  But  if  my  leader  sees  new  lights 
and  turns  a  sharp  corner,  unless  I  see  new 
lights  also,  I  keep  straight  on  in  the  same 
path.  I  repeat,  that  leading  gentlemen  from 
South  Carolina  were  first  and  foremost  in 
behalf  of  the  doctrines  of  internal  improve 
ments,  when  those  doctrines  came  first  to  be 
considered  and  acted  upon  in  Congress.  The 
debate  on  the  bank  question,  on  the  tariff  of 
1816,  and  on  the  direct  tax  will  show  who 
was  who,  and  what  was  what,  at  that  time. 

The  tariff  of  1816  (one  of  the  plain  cases 
of  oppression  and  usurpation,  from  which,  if 
the  government  does  not  recede,  individual 
states  may  justly  secede  from  the  government) 

153 


American 


is,  sir,  in  truth,  a  South  Carolina  tariff,  sup 
ported  by  South  Carolina  votes.  But  for 
those  votes  it  could  not  have  passed  in  the 
form  in  which  it  did  pass;  whereas,  if  it  had 
depended  on  Massachusetts  votes,  it  would 
have  been  lost.  Does  not  the  honorable  gen 
tleman  well  know  all  this  ?  There  are  certainly 
those  who  do,  full  well,  know  it  all.  I  do 
not  say  this  to  reproach  South  Carolina.  I 
only  state  the  fact;  and  I  think  it  will  appear 
to  be  true,  that  among  the  earliest  and  boldest 
advocates  of  the  tariff,  as  a  measure  of  protec 
tion,  and  on  the  express  ground  of  protection, 
were  leading  gentlemen  of  South  Carolina  in 
Congress.  I  did  not  then,  and  cannot  now, 
understand  their  language  in  any  other  sense. 
While  this  tariff  of  1816  was  under  discussion 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  an  honorable 
gentleman  from  Georgia,  now  of  this  house, 
moved  to  reduce  the  proposed  duty  on  cotton. 
He  failed,  by  four  votes,  South  Carolina  giv 
ing  three  votes  (enough  to  have  turned  the 
scale)  against  his  motion.  The  act,  sir,  then 
passed,  and  received  on  its  passage  the  sup 
port  of  a  majority  of  the  Representatives  of 
South  Carolina  present  and  voting.  This  act 
is  the  first  in  the  order  of  those  now  denounced 
as  plain  usurpations.  We  see  it  daily  in  the 
list,  by  the  side  of  those  of  1824  and  1828, 
as  a  case  of  manifest  oppression,  justifying 
disunion.  I  put  it  home  to  the  honorable  mem 
ber  from  South  Carolina,  that  his  own  state 
154 


Daniel 


was  not  only  "  art  and  part  "  in  this  measure, 
but  the  causa  causans.  Without  her  aid,  this 
seminal  principle  of  mischief,  this  root  of 
upas,  could  not  have  been  planted.  I  have 
already  said,  and  it  is  true,  that  this  act 
proceeded  on  the  ground  of  protection.  It 
interfered  directly  with  existing  interests  of 
great  value  and  amount.  It  cut  up  the  Calcutta 
cotton  trade  by  the  roots;  but  it  passed, 
nevertheless,  and  it  passed  on  the  principle 
of  protecting  manufactures,  on  the  principle 
against  free  trade,  on  the  principle  opposed  to 
that  which  lets  us  alone. 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opinions  of 
important  and  leading  gentlemen  from  South 
Carolina,  on  the  subject  of  internal  improve 
ment,  in  1816.  I  went  out  of  Congress  the 
next  year,  and,  returning  again  in  1823,  thought 
I  found  South  Carolina  where  I  had  left  her. 
I  really  supposed  that  all  things  remained  as 
they  were,  and  that  the  South  Carolina  doc 
trine  of  internal  improvements  would  be  de 
fended  by  the  same  eloquent  voices  and  the 
same  strong  arms,  as  formerly.  In  the 
lapse  of  these  six  years,  it  is  true,  political 
associations  had  assumed  a  new  aspect  and 
new  divisions.  A  strong  party  had  arisen 
in  the  South  hostile  to  the  doctrine  of  internal 
improvements.  Anti-consolidation  was  the 
flag  under  which  this  party  fought;  and  its 
supporters  inveighed  against  internal  improve 
ments,  much  after  the  manner  in  which  the 


Jftemoratrfe  American 


honorable  gentleman  has  now  inveighed  against 
them,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  system  of 
consolidation.  Whether  this  party  arose  in 
South  Carolina  itself,  or  in  the  neighborhood, 
is  more  than  I  know.  I  think  the  latter. 
However  that  may  have  been,  there  were  those 
found  in  South  Carolina  ready  to  make  war 
upon  it,  and  who  did  make  intrepid  war  upon 
it.  Names  being  regarded  as  things  in  such 
controversies,  they  bestowed  on  the  anti- 
improvement  gentlemen  the  appellation  of 
Radicals.  Yes,  sir,  the  appellation  of  Radicals, 
as  a  term  of  distinction  applicable  and  applied 
to  those  who  denied  the  liberal  doctrines  of 
internal  improvement,  originated,  according  to 
the  best  of  my  recollection,  somewhere  between 
North  Carolina  and  Georgia.  Well,  sir,  these 
mischievous  Radicals  were  to  be  put  down,  and 
the  strong  arm  of  South  Carolina  was  stretched 
out  to  put  them  down.  About  this  time  I 
returned  to  Congress.  The  battle  with  the 
Radicals  had  been  fought,  and  our  South 
Carolina  champions  of  the  doctrines  of  inter 
nal  improvement  had  nobly  maintained  their 
ground,  and  were  understood  to  have  achieved 
a  victory.  We  looked  upon  them  as  conquer 
ors.  They  had  driven  back  the  enemy  with 
discomfiture,  a  thing,  by  the  way,  sir,  which  is 
not  always  performed  when  it  is  promised. 
A  gentleman  to  whom  I  have  already  referred 
in  this  debate  had  come  into  Congress,  during 
my  absence  from  it,  from  South  Carolina,  and 
156 


2DanieI 


had  brought  with  him  a  high  reputation  for 
ability.  He  came  from  a  school  with  which 
we  had  been  acquainted,  et  noscitur  a  sodis. 
I  hold  in  my  hand,  sir,  a  printed  speech  of 
this  distinguished  gentleman,  "  On  Internal 
Improvements,"  delivered  about  the  period 
to  which  I  now  refer,  and  printed  with  a  few 
introductory  remarks  upon  consolidation;  in 
which,  sir,  I  think  he  quite  consolidated  the 
arguments  of  his  opponents,  the  Radicals,  if 
to  crush\)t  to  consolidate.  I  give  you  a  short 
but  significant  quotation  from  these  remarks. 
He  is  speaking  of  a  pamphlet,  then  recently 
published,  entitled  "  Consolidation";  and  hav 
ing  alluded  to  the  question  of  renewing  the 
charter  of  the  former  Bank  of  the  United 
States,  he  says:  — 

"  Moreover,  in  the  early  history  of  parties,  and 
when  Mr.  Crawford  advocated  a  renewal  of  the 
old  charter,  it  was  considered  a  Federal  measure; 
which  internal  improvement  never  vvas,  as  this  author 
erroneously  states.  This  latter  measure  originated 
in  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  with  the  appro 
priation  for  the  Cumberland  Road;  and  was  first 
proposed,  as  a  system,  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  carried 
through  the  House  of  Representatives  by  a  large 
majority  of  the  Republicans,  including  almost  every 
one  of  the  leading  men  who  carried  us  through  the 
late  war." 

So,  then,  internal  improvement  is  not  one  of 
the  Federal  heresies. 

One  paragraph  more,  sir  :— 

"  The  author  in  question,  not  content  with  de 
nouncing  as  Federalists,  General  Jackson,  Mr. 

157 


American 


Adams,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  the  majority  of  the  South 
Carolina  delegation  in  Congress,  modestly  extends 
the  denunciation  to  Mr.  Monroe  and  the  whole  Re 
publican  party.  Here  are  his  words  :  '  During  the  ad 
ministration  of  Mr.  Monroe  much  has  passed  which 
the  Republican  party  would  be  glad  to  approve  if 
they  could!  But  the  principal  feature,  and  that 
which  has  chiefly  elicited  these  observations,  is  the 
renewal  of  the  system  of  internal  improvements.' 
Now,  this  measure  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  115  to  86 
of  a  Republican  Congress,  and  sanctioned  by  a  Re 
publican  President.  Who,  then,  is  this  author,  who 
assumes  the  high  prerogative  of  denouncing,  in  the 
name  of  the  Republican  party,  the  Republican  ad 
ministration  of  the  country  ?  A  denunciation  in 
cluding  within  its  sweep  Calhotm,  Lowndes,  and 
Cheves,  men  who  will  be  regarded  as  the  brightest 
ornaments  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  strongest  pil 
lars  of  the  Republican  party,  as  long  as  the^late  war 
shall  be  remembered,  and  talents  and  patriotism  shall 
be  regarded  as  the  proper  objects  of  the  admiration 
and  gratitude  of  a  free  people!  " 

Such  are  the  opinions,  sir,  which  were 
maintained  by  South  Carolina  gentlemen,  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  subject 
of  internal  improvements,  when  I  took  my 
seat  there  as  a  member  from  Massachusetts  in 
1823.  But  this  not  all.  We  had  a  bill  before 
us,  and  passed  it  in  that  house,  entitled,  "An 
act  to  procure  the  necessary  surveys,  plans, 
and  estimates  upon  the  subject  of  roads  and 
canals."  It  authorized  the  President  to  cause 
surveys  and  estimates  to  be  made  of  the  routes 
of  such  roads  and  canals  as  he  might  deem  of 
national  importance  in  a  commercial  or  mili 
tary  point  of  view,  or  for  the  transportation  of 
158 


2Daniei 


the  mail,  and  appropriated  thirty  thousand 
dollars  out  of  the  treasury  to  defray  the  ex 
pense.  This  act,  though  preliminary  in  its 
nature,  covered  the  whole  ground.  It  took 
for  granted  the  complete  power  of  internal 
improvement,  as  far  as  any  of  its  advocates 
had  ever  contended  for  it.  Having  passed  the 
other  house,  the  bill  came  up  to  the  Senate, 
and  was  here  considered  and  debated  in  April, 
1824.  The  honorable  member  from  South 
Carolina  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  at  that 
time.  While  the  bill  was  under  consideration 
here,  a  motion  was  made  to  add  the  following 
proviso:  "Provided,  that  nothing  herein  con 
tained  shall  be  construed  to  affirm  or  admit  a 
power  in  Congress,  on  their  own  authority,  to 
make  roads  or  canals  within  any  of  the  states 
of  the  Union."  The  yeas  and  nays  were  taken 
on  this  proviso,  and  the  honorable  member 
voted  in  the  negative  !  The  proviso  failed. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  add  this  proviso, 
viz. :  "Provided,  that  the  faith  of  the  United 
States  is  hereby  pledged,  that  no  money  shall 
ever  be  expended  for  roads  or  canals,  except 
it  shall  be  among  the  several  states,  and  in  the 
same  proportion  as  direct  taxes  are  laid  and 
assessed  by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitu 
tion."  The  honorable  member  voted  against 
this  proviso  also,  and  it  failed.  The  bill  was 
then  put  on  its  passage,  and  the  honorable 
member  voted  for  it,  and  it  passed  and  be 
came  a  law. 

159 


;jttemora&le  American 


Now,  it  strikes  me,  sir,  that  there  is  no 
maintaining  these  votes  but  upon  the  power 
of  internal  improvement,  in  its  broadest  sense. 
In  truth,  these  bills  for  surveys  and  estimates 
have  always  been  considered  as  test  questions; 
they  show  who  is  for  and  who  against  internal 
improvement.  This  law  itself  went  the  whole 
length,  and  assumed  the  full  and  complete 
power.  The  gentleman's  votes  sustained  that 
power,  in  every  form  in  which  the  various  prop 
ositions  to  amend  presented  it.  He  went  for 
the  entire  and  unrestrained  authority,  without 
consulting  the  states,  and  without  agreeing  to 
any  proportionate  distribution.  And  now  suf 
fer  me  to  remind  you,  Mr.  President,  that  it  is 
this  very  same  power,  thus  sanctioned,  in  every 
form,  by  the  gentleman's  own  opinion,  which 
is  so  plain  and  manifest  a  usurpation  that  the 
state  of  South  Carolina  is  supposed  to  be  jus 
tified  in  refusing  submission  to  any  laws  carry 
ing  the  power  into  effect.  Truly,  sir,  is  not 
this  a  little  too  hard  ?  May  we  not  crave  some 
mercy,  under  favor  and  protection  of  the  gen 
tleman's  own  authority  ?  Admitting  that  a 
road,  or  a  canal,  must  be  written  down  flat 
usurpation  as  was  ever  committed,  may  we 
find  no  mitigation  in  our  respect  for  his  place, 
and  his  vote,  as  one  that  knows  the  law  ? 

The  tariff,   which  South  Carolina  had  an 

efficient   hand   in  establishing,   in   1816,   and 

this  asserted  power  of  internal  improvement, 

advanced  by  her  in  the  same  year,  and,  as  we 

160 


Daniel 


have  seen,  approved  and  sanctioned  by  her 
representatives  in  1824, — these  two  measures 
are  the  great  grounds  on  which  she  is  now 
thought  to  be  justified  in  breaking  up  the 
Union,  if  she  sees  fit  to  break  it  up ! 

I  may  now  safely  say,  I  think,  that  we  have 
had  the  authority  of  leading  and  distinguished 
gentlemen  from  South  Carolina  in  support  of 
the  doctrine  of  internal  improvement.  I  re 
peat,  that,  up  to  1824,  I  for  one  followed  South 
Carolina;  but  when  that  star,  in  its  ascension, 
veered  off  in  an  unexpected  direction,  I  relied 
on  its  light  no  longer. 

I  have  thus,  sir,  perhaps  not  without  some 
tediousness  of  detail,  shown,  if  I  am  in  error  on 
the  subject  of  internal  improvement,  how,  and 
in  what  company,  I  fell  into  that  error.  If  I 
am  wrong,  it  is  apparent  who  misled  me. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honorable  mem 
ber  ;  and  I  have  to  complain  of  an  entire  mis 
apprehension  of  what  I  said  on  the  subject  of 
the  national  debt,  though  I  can  hardly  perceive 
how  any  one  could  misunderstand  me.  What 
I  said  was,  not  that  I  wished  to  put  off  the 
payment  of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that 
I  had  always  voted  for  every  measure  for  its 
reduction,  as  uniformly  as  the  gentleman  him 
self.  He  seems  to  claim  the  exclusive  merit 
of  a  disposition  to  reduce  the  public  charge. 
I  do  not  allow  it  to  him.  As  a  debt,  I  was,  I 
am,  for  paying  it,  because  it  is  a  charge  on  our 
finances,  and  on  the  industry  of  the  country. 
161 


Jttemora&le  American 


But  I  observed,  that  I  thought  I  perceived  a 
morbid  fervor  on  that  subject,  an  excessive 
anxiety  to  pay  off  the  debt,  not  so  much  be 
cause  it  is  a  debt  simply,  as  because,  while  it 
lasts,  it  furnishes  one  objection  to  disunion. 
It  is,  while  it  continues,  a  tie  of  common 
interest.  I  did  not  impute  such  motives  to 
the  honorable  member  himself,  but  that  there 
is  such  an  opinion  in  existence  I  have  not  a 
particle  of  doubt.  The  most  I  said  was,  that, 
if  one  effect  of  the  debt  was  to  strengthen  our 
Union,  that  effect  itself  was  not  regretted  by 
me,  however  much  others  might  regret  it.  The 
gentleman  has  not  seen  how  to  reply  to  this, 
otherwise  than  by  supposing  me  to  have  ad 
vanced  the  doctrine  that  a  national  debt  is  a 
national  blessing.  Others,  I  must  hope,  will 
find  much  less  difficulty  in  understanding  me. 
I  distinctly  and  pointedly  cautioned  the  honor 
able  member  not  to  understand  me  as  express 
ing  an  opinion  favorable  to  the  continuance 
of  the  debt.  I  repeated  this  caution,  and  re 
peated  it  more  than  once;  but  it  was  thrown 
away. 

On  yet  another  point,  I  was  still  more  unac 
countably  misunderstood.  The  gentleman  had 
harangued  against  "consolidation."  I  told  him, 
in  reply,  that  there  was  one  kind  of  consolida 
tion  to  which  I  was  attached,  and  that  was 
the  consolidation  of  our  Union;  that  this  was 
precisely  that  consolidation  to  which  I  feared 
others  were  not  attached,  and  that  such  con- 
162 


Daniel 


solidation  was  the  very  end  of  the  Constitution, 
the  leading  object,  as  they  had  informed  us 
themselves,  which  its  framers  had  kept  in 
view.  I  turned  to  their  communication,  and 
read  their  very  words,  "the  consolidation  of 
the  Union,"  and  expressd  my  devotion  to  this 
sort  of  consolidation.  I  said,  in  terms,  that  I 
wished  not  in  the  slightest  degree  to  augment 
the  powers  of  this  government;  that  my  object 
was  to  preserve,  not  to  enlarge;  and  that  by 
consolidating  the  Union  I  understood  no  more 
than  the  strengthening  of  the  Union,  and  per 
petuating  it.  Having  been  thus  explicit,  hav 
ing  thus  read  from  the  printed  book  the  precise 
words  which  I  adopted,  as  expressing  my  own 
sentiments,  it  passes  comprehension  how  any 
man  could  understand  me  as  contending  for  an 
extension  of  the  powers  of  the  government,  or 
for  consolidation  in  that  odious  sense  in  which 
it  means  an  accumulation,  in  the  federal  gov 
ernment,  of  the  powers  properly  belonging  to 
the  states. 

I  repeat,  sir,  that,  in  adopting  the  senti 
ment  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  I  read 
their  language  audibly,  and  word  for  word; 
and  I  pointed  out  the  distinction,  just  as  fully 
as  I  have  now  done,  between  the  consolidation 
of  the  Union  and  that  other  obnoxious  con 
solidation  which  I  disclaimed.  And  yet  the 
honorable  member  misunderstood  me.  The 
gentleman  had  said  that  he  wished  for  no  fixed 
revenue, —  not  a  shilling.  If  by  a  word  he  could 
163 


American 


convert  the  Capitol  into  gold,  he  would  not 
do  it.  Why  all  this  fear  of  revenue  ?  Why, 
sir,  because,  as  the  gentleman  told  us,  it  tends 
to  consolidation.  Now,  this  can  mean  neither 
more  nor  less  than  that  a  common  revenue  is 
a  common  interest,  and  that  all  common  inter 
ests  tend  to  preserve  the  union  of  the  states. 
I  confess  I  like  that  tendency;  if  the  gentle 
man  dislikes  it,  he  is  right  in  deprecating  a 
shilling  of  fixed  revenue.  So  much,  sir,  for 
consolidation. 

As  well  as  I  recollect  the  course  of  his  re 
marks,  the  honorable  gentleman  next  recurred 
to  the  subject  of  the  tariff.  He  did  not  doubt 
the  word  must  be  of  unpleasant  sound  to  me, 
and  proceeded,  with  an  effort  neither  new  nor 
attended  with  new  success,  to  involve  me  and 
my  votes  in  inconsistency  and  contradiction. 
I  am  happy  the  honorable  gentleman  has  fur 
nished  me  an  opportunity  of  a  timely  remark 
or  two  on  that  subject.  I  was  glad  he  ap 
proached  it,  for  it  is  a  question  I  enter  upon 
without  fear  from  anybody.  The  strenuous 
toil  of  the  gentleman  has  been  to  raise  an 
inconsistency  between  my  dissent  to  the  tariff 
in  1824  and  my  vote  in  1828.  It  is  labor 
lost.  He  pays  undeserved  compliment  to  my 
speech  in  1824;  but  this  is  to  raise  me  high, 
that  my  fall,  as  he  would  have  it,  in  1828, 
may  be  more  signal.  Sir,  there  was  no  fall. 
Between  the  ground  I  stood  on  in  1824  and 
that  I  took  in  1828,  there  was  not  only  no 
164 


SDaniel  Wtbgttt 


precipice,  but  no  declivity.  It  was  a  change 
of  position  to  meet  new  circumstances,  but  on 
the  same  level.  A  plain  tale  explains  the 
whole  matter.  In  1816  I  had  not  acquiesced 
in  the  tariff,  then  supported  by  South  Caro 
lina.  To  some  parts  of  it,  especially,  I  felt  and 
expressed  great  repugnance.  I  held  the  same 
opinions  in  1820,  at  the  meeting  in  Faneuil 
Hall,  to  which  the  gentleman  has  alluded. 

With  a  great  majority  of  the  representa 
tives  of  Massachusetts,  I  voted  against  the 
tariff  of  1824.  My  reasons  were  then  given, 
and  I  will  not  now  repeat  them.  But  not 
withstanding  our  dissent,  the  great  states  of 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Kentucky 
went  for  the  bill,  in  almost  unbroken  column, 
and  it  passed.  Congress  and  the  President 
sanctioned  it,  and  it  became  the  law  of  the 
land.  What,  then,  were  we  to  do  ?  Our  only 
option  was,  either  to  fall  in  with  this  settled 
course  of  public  policy,  and  accommodate  our 
selves  to  it  as  well  as  we  could,  or  to  embrace 
the  South  Carolina  doctrine,  and  talk  of  nulli 
fying  the  statute  by  state  interference. 

This  last  alternative  did  not  suit  our  prin 
ciples,  and  of  course  we  adopted  the  former. 
In  1827,  the  subject  came  again  before  Con 
gress,  on  a  proposition  to  afford  some  relief 
to  the  branch  of  wool  and  woolens.  We 
looked  upon  the  system  of  protection  as  being 
fixed  and  settled.  The  law  of  1824  remained. 
It  had  gone  into  full  operation,  and  in  regard 
165 


Jftemoratile  American 


to  some  objects  intended  by  it,  perhaps  most 
of  them,  had  produced  all  its  expected  effects. 
No  man  proposed  to  repeal  it;  no  man  at 
tempted  to  renew  the  general  contest  on  its 
principle.  But,  owing  to  subsequent  and  un 
foreseen  occurrences,  the  benefit  intended  by 
it  to  wool  and  woolen  fabrics  had  not  been  re 
alized.  Events  not  known  here  when  the  law 
passed  had  taken  place,  which  defeated  its 
object  in  that  particular  respect.  A  measure 
was  accordingly  brought  forward  to  meet  this 
precise  deficiency,  to  remedy  this  particular 
defect.  It  was  limited  to  wool  and  woolens. 
Was  ever  anything  more  reasonable?  If  the 
policy  of  the  tariff  laws  had  become  estab 
lished  in  principle,  as  the  permanent  policy  of 
the  government,  should  they  not  be  revised 
and  amended,  and  made  equal,  like  other  laws, 
as  exigencies  should  arise,  or  justice  require  ? 
Because  we  had  doubted  about  adopting  the 
system,  were  we  to  refuse  to  cure  its  manifest 
defects  after  it  had  been  adopted,  and  when 
no  one  attempted  its  repeal?  And  this,  sir, 
is  the  inconsistency  so  much  bruited.  I  had 
voted  against  the  tariff  of  1824,  but  it  passed; 
and  in  1827  and  1828  I  voted  to  amend  it,  in 
a  point  essential  to  the  interest  of  my  constit 
uents.  Where  is  the  inconsistency?  Could 
I  do  otherwise  ?  Sir,  does  political  consis 
tency  consist  in  always  giving  negative  votes  ? 
Does  it  require  of  a  public  man  to  refuse  to 
concur  in  amending  laws  because  they  passed 
166 


SDaniel 


against  his  consent  ?  Having  voted  against 
the  tariff  originally,  does  consistency  demand 
that  I  should  do  all  in  my  power  to  maintain 
an  unequal  tariff,  burdensome  to  my  own  con 
stituents  in  many  respects,  favorable  in  none  ? 
To  consistency  of  that  sort,  I  lay  no  claim. 
And  there  is  another  sort  to  which  I  lay  as 
little,  and  that  is,  a  kind  of  consistency  by 
which  persons  feel  themselves  as  much  bound 
to  oppose  a  proposition  after  it  has  become  a 
law  of  the  land  as  before. 

The  bill  of  1827,  limited,  as  I  have  said,  to 
the  single  object  in  which  the  tariff  of  1824 
had  manifestly  failed  in  its  effect,  passed  the 
House  of  Representatives,  but  was  lost  here. 
We  had  then  the  act  of  1828.  I  need  not 
recur  to  the  history  of  a  measure  so  recent. 
Its  enemies  spiced  it  with  whatsoever  they 
thought  would  render  it  distasteful ;  its  friends 
took  it,  drugged  as  it  was.  Vast  amounts  of 
property,  many  millions,  had  been  invested 
in  manufactures,  under  the  inducements  of 
the  act  of  1824.  Events  called  loudly,  as  I 
thought,  for  further  regulation  to  secure  the 
degree  of  protection  intended  by  that  act. 
I  was  disposed  to  vote  for  such  regulation,  and 
desired  nothing  more;  but  certainly  was  not 
to  be  bantered  out  of  my  purpose  by  a  threat 
ened  augmentation  of  duty  on  molasses,  put 
into  the  bill  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  mak 
ing  it  obnoxious.  The  vote  may  have  been 
right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise ;  but  it  is  little 
167 


American 


less  than  absurd  to  allege  against  it  an  incon 
sistency  with  opposition  to  the  former  law. 

Sir,  as  to  the  general  subject  of  the  tariff, 
I  have  little  now  to  say.  Another  opportu 
nity  may  be  presented.  I  remarked  the  other 
day,  that  this  policy  did  not  begin  with  us  in 
New  England;  and  yet,  sir,  New  England  is 
charged  with  vehemence  as  being  favorable,  or 
charged  with  equal  vehemence  as  being  un 
favorable,  to  the  tariff  policy,  just  as  best  suits 
the  time,  place,  and  occasion  for  making  some 
charge  against  her.  The  credulity  of  the 
public  has  been  put  to  its  extreme  capacity  of 
false  impression  relative  to  her  conduct  in  this 
particular.  Through  all  the  South,  during  the 
late  contest,  it  was  New  England  policy  and  a 
New  England  administration  that  were  afflict 
ing  the  country  with  a  tariff  beyond  all  endur 
ance  ;  while  on  the  other  side  of  the  Allegha- 
nies  even  the  act  of  1828  itself,  the  very 
sublimated  essence  of  oppression,  according 
to  Southern  opinions,  was  pronounced  to  be 
one  of  those  blessings  for  which  the  West 
was  indebted  to  the  "  generous  South." 

With  large  investments  in  manufacturing 
establishments,  and  many  and  various  inter 
ests  connected  with  and  dependent  on  them, 
it  is  not  to  be  expected  that  New  England, 
any  more  than  other  portions  of  the  country, 
will  now  consent  to  any  measure  destruc 
tive  or  highly  dangerous.  The  duty  of  the 
government,  at  the  present  moment,  would 
168 


2Daniel 


seem  to  be  to  preserve,  not  to  destroy;  to 
maintain  the  position  which  it  has  assumed; 
and  for  one,  I  shall  feel  it  an  indispensable 
obligation  to  hold  it  steady,  as  far  as  in  my 
power,  to  that  degree  of  protection  which  it 
has  undertaken  to  bestow.  No  more  of  the 
tariff. 

Professing  to  be  provoked  by  what  he  chose 
to  consider  a  charge  made  by  me  against 
South  Carolina,  the  honorable  member,  Mr. 
President,  has  taken  up  a  new  crusade  against 
New  England.  Leaving  altogether  the  sub 
ject  of  the  public  lands,  in  which  his  success, 
perhaps,  had  been  neither  distinguished  nor 
satisfactory,  and  letting  go,  also,  of  the  topic 
of  the  tariff,  he  sallied  forth  in  a  general  as 
sault  on  the  opinions,  politics,  and  parties  of 
New  England  as  they  have  been  exhibited  in 
the  last  thirty  years.  This  is  natural.  The 
"narrow  policy"  of  the  public  lands  had  proved 
a  legal  settlement  in  South  Carolina,  and  was 
not  to  be  removed.  The  "accursed  policy" 
of  the  tariff,  also,  had  established  the  fact  of 
its  birth  and  parentage  in  the  same  state. 
No  wonder,  therefore,  the  gentleman  wished 
to  carry  the  war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into  the 
enemy's  country.  Prudently  willing  to  quit 
these  subjects,  he  was  doubtless  desirous  of 
fastening  on  others,  which  could  not  be  trans 
ferred  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line. 
The  politics  of  New  England  became  his 
theme,  and  it  was  in  this  part  of  his  speech,  I 
169 


American 


think,  that  he  menaced  me  with  such  sore  dis 
comfiture.  Discomfiture!  Why,  sir,  when  he 
attacks  anything  which  I  maintain  and  over 
throws  it,  when  he  turns  the  right  or  left  of 
any  position  which  I  take  up,  when  he  drives 
me  from  any  ground  I  choose  to  occupy,  he 
may  then  talk  of  discomfiture,  but  not  till  that 
distant  day.  What  has  he  done?  Has  he 
maintained  his  own  charges?  Has  he  proved 
what  he  alleged  ?  Has  he  sustained  himself  in 
his  attack  on  the  government,  and  on  the  history 
of  the  North,  in  the  matter  of  the  public  lands  ? 
Has  he  disproved  a  fact,  refuted  a  propo 
sition,  weakened  an  argument,  maintained  by 
me?  Has  he  come  within  beat  of  drum  of 
any  position  of  mine?  O,  no;  but  he  has 
"carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country"! 
Carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country! 
Yes,  sir,  and  what  sort  of  a  war  has  he  made 
of  it?  Why,  sir,  he  has  stretched  a  dragnet 
over  the  whole  surface  of  perished  pamphlets, 
indiscreet  sermons,  frothy  paragraphs,  and 
fuming  popular  addresses,  —  over  whatever 
the  pulpit  in  its  moments  of  alarm,  the  press 
in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  extravagance 
have  severally  thrown  off  in  times  of  general 
excitement  and  violence.  He  has  thus  swept 
together  a  mass  of  such  things  as,  but  that  they 
now  are  old  and  cold,  the  public  health  would 
have  required  him  rather  to  leave  in  their  state 
of  dispersion.  For  a  good  long  hour  or  two  we 
had  the  unbroken  pleasure  of  listening  to  the 
170 


2Daniel  Wtbgtct 


honorable  member,  while  he  recited  with  his 
usual  grace  and  spirit,  and  with  evident  high 
gusto,  speeches,  pamphlets,  addresses,  and  all 
the  et  cceteras  of  the  political  press,  such  as 
warm  heads  produce  in  warm  times,  and  such 
as  it  would  be  "discomfiture"  indeed  for  any 
one  whose  taste  did  not  delight  in  that  sort  of 
reading  to  be  obliged  to  peruse.  This  is  his 
war.  This  it  is  to  carry  the  war  into  the  ene 
my's  country.  It  is  in  an  invasion  of  this  sort 
that  he  flatters  himself  with  the  expectation  of 
gaining  laurels  fit  to  adorn  a  senator's  brow! 
Mr.  President,  I  shall  not,  it  will  not,  I  trust, 
be  expected  that  I  should,  either  now  or  at  any 
time,  separate  this  farrago  into  parts  and 
answer  and  examine  its  components.  I  shall 
barely  bestow  upon  it  all  a  general  remark  or 
two.  In  the  run  of  forty  years,  sir,  under  this 
Constitution,  we  have  experienced  sundry  suc 
cessive  violent  party  contests.  Party  arose, 
indeed,  with  the  Constitution  itself,  and  in 
some  form  or  other  has  attended  it  through 
the  greater  part  of  its  history.  Whether  any 
other  constitution  than  the  old  Articles  of 
Confederation  was  desirable,  was  itself  a  ques 
tion  on  which  parties  divided;  if  a  new  con 
stitution  were  framed,  what  powers  should  be 
given  to  it  was  another  question ;  and  when  it 
had  been  formed,  what  was,  in  fact,  the  just 
extent  of  the  powers  actually  conferred  was  a 
third.  Parties,  as  we  know,  existed  under  the 
first  administration  as  distinctly  marked  as 


;jftemora&Ie  American 


those  which  have  manifested  themselves  at 
any  subsequent  period.  The  contest  imme 
diately  preceding  the  political  change  in  1801, 
and  that  again  which  existed  at  the  commence 
ment  of  the  late  war,  are  other  instances  of 
party  excitement  of  something  more  than  usual 
strength  and  intensity.  In  all  these  conflicts 
there  was,  no  doubt,  much  of  violence  on  both 
and  all  sides.  It  would  be  impossible,  if  one 
had  a  fancy  for  such  employment,  to  adjust  the 
relative  quantum  of  violence  between  these  con 
tending  parties.  There  was  enough  in  each  as 
must  always  be  expected  in  popular  govern 
ments.  With  a  great  deal  of  popular  and  deco 
rous  discussion,  there  was  mingled  a  great  deal, 
also,  of  declamation,  virulence,  crimination, 
and  abuse.  In  regard  to  any  party,  probably, 
at  one  of  the  leading  epochs  in  the  history 
of  parties,  enough  may  be  found  to  make  out 
another  inflamed  exhibition,  not  unlike  that 
with  which  the  honorable  member  has  edified 
us.  For  myself,  sir,  I  shall  not  rake  among 
the  rubbish  of  bygone  times  to  see  what  I 
can  find,  or  whether  I  cannot  find  something 
by  which  I  can  fix  a  blot  on  the  escutcheon  of 
any  state,  any  party,  or  any  part  of  the  coun 
try.  General  Washington's  administration 
was  steadily  and  zealously  maintained,  as  we 
all  know,  by  New  England.  It  was  violently 
opposed  elsewhere.  We  know  in  what  quarter 
he  had  the  most  earnest,  constant,  and  perse 
vering  support  in  all  his  great  and  leading 
172 


SDaniel 


measures.  We  know  where  his  private  and 
personal  character  was  held  in  the  highest 
degree  of  attachment  and  veneration;  and  we 
know,  too,  where  his  measures  were  opposed, 
his  services  slighted,  and  his  character  vilified. 
We  know,  or  we  might  know  if  we  turned  to 
the  journals,  who  expressed  respect,  gratitude, 
and  regret  when  he  retired  from  the  chief 
magistracy,  and  who  refused  to  express  either 
respect,  gratitude,  or  regret.  I  shall  not  open 
those  journals.  Publications  more  abusive  or 
scurrilous  never  saw  the  light  than  were  sent 
forth  against  Washington,  and  all  his  leading 
measures,  from  presses  south  of  New  England. 
But  I  shall  not  look  them  up.  I  employ  no 
scavengers;  no  one  is  in  attendance  on  me, 
furnishing  such  means  of  retaliation;  and  if 
there  were,  with  an  ass's  load  of  them,  with  a 
bulk  as  huge  as  that  which  the  gentleman  him 
self  has  produced,  I  would  not  touch  one  of 
them.  I  see  enough  of  the  violence  of  our 
own  times  to  be  no  way  anxious  to  rescue  from 
forgetfulness  the  extravagances  of  times  past. 
Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present  pur 
pose  ?  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  public 
lands,  in  regard  to  which  the  attack  was  be 
gun;  and  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  those  sen 
timents  and  opinions  which,  I  have  thought, 
tend  to  disunion,  and  all  of  which  the  honor 
able  member  seems  to  have  adopted  himself, 
and  undertaken  to  defend.  New  England  has, 
at  times,  so  argues  the  gentleman,  held  opin- 

173 


American 


ions  as  dangerous  as  those  which  he  now  holds. 
Suppose  this  were  so;  why  should  he  there 
fore  abuse  New  England  ?  If  he  finds  himself 
countenanced  by  acts  of  hers,  how  is  it  that 
while  he  relies  on  these  acts  he  covers,  or 
seeks  to  cover,  their  authors  with  reproach  ? 
But,  sir,  if,  in  the  course  of  forty  years,  there 
have  been  undue  effervescences  of  party  in 
New  England,  has  the  same  thing  happened 
nowhere  else  ?  Party  animosity  and  party  out 
rage,  not  in  New  England,  but  elsewhere,  de 
nounced  President  Washington,  not  only  as  a 
Federalist,  but  as  a  Tory,  a  British  agent,  a 
man  who,  in  his  high  office,  sanctioned  corrup 
tion.  But  does  the  honorable  member  sup 
pose,  if  I  had  a  tender  here  who  should  put 
such  an  effusion  of  wickedness  and  folly  into 
my  hand,  that  I  would  stand  up  and  read  it 
against  the  South?  Parties  ran  into  great 
heats  again  in  1799  and  1800.  What  was 
said,  sir,  or  rather  what  was  not  said,  in  those 
years,  against  John  Adams,  one  of  the  com 
mittee  that  drafted  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  and  its  admitted  ablest  defender 
on  the  floor  of  Congress  ?  If  the  gentleman 
wishes  to  increase  his  stores  of  party  abuse 
and  frothy  violence,  if  he  has  a  determined 
proclivity  to  such  pursuits,  there  are  treasures 
of  that  sort  south  of  the  Potomac,  much  to 
his  taste,  yet  untouched.  I  shall  not  touch 
them. 

The  parties  which  divided  the  country  at 

174 


2DanieI 


the  commencement  of  the  late  war  were  vio 
lent.  But  then  there  was  violence  on  both 
sides,  and  violence  in  every  state.  Minorities 
and  majorities  were  equally  violent.  There 
was  no  more  violence  against  the  war  in  New 
England  than  in  other  states;  nor  any  more 
appearance  of  violence,  except  that,  owing  to 
a  dense  population,  greater  facility  of  assem 
bling,  and  more  presses,  there  may  have  been 
more  in  quantity  spoken  and  printed  there 
than  in  some  other  places.  In  the  article  of 
sermons,  too,  New  England  is  somewhat  more 
abundant  than  South  Carolina;  and  for  that 
reason  the  chance  of  finding  here  and  there 
an  exceptionable  one  may  be  greater.  I  hope, 
too,  there  are  more  good  ones.  Opposition 
may  have  been  more  formidable  in  New  Eng 
land,  as  it  embraced  a  larger  portion  of  the 
whole  population;  but  it  was  no  more  unre 
strained  in  principle,  or  violent  in  manner. 
The  minorities  dealt  quite  as  harshly  with 
their  own  state  governments  as  the  majorities 
dealt  with  the  administration  here.  There 
were  presses  on  both  sides,  popular  meetings 
on  both  sides,  ay,  and  pulpits  on  both  sides 
also.  The  gentleman's  purveyors  have  only 
catered  for  him  among  the  productions  of  one 
side.  I  certainly  shall  not  supply  the  defi 
ciency  by  furnishing  samples  of  the  other.  I 
leave  to  him,  and  to  them,  the  whole  concern. 
It  is  enough  for  me  to  say,  that  if  in  any 
part  of  this  their  grateful  occupation,  if  in 

175 


American 


all  their  researches,  they  find  anything  in  the 
history  of  Massachusetts,  or  New  England,  or 
in  the  proceedings  of  any  legislative  or  other 
public  body,  disloyal  to  the  Union,  speaking 
slightingly  of  its  value,  proposing  to  break 
it  up,  or  recommending  non-intercourse  with 
neighboring  states,  on  account  of  difference 
of  political  opinion,  then,  sir,  I  give  them  all 
up  to  the  honorable  gentleman's  unrestrained 
rebuke;  expecting,  however,  that  he  will  ex 
tend  his  buffetings  in  like  manner  to  all  simi 
lar  proceedings,  wherever  else  found. 

The  gentleman,  sir,  has  spoken  at  large  of 
former  parties,  now  no  longer  in  being,  by 
their  received  appellations,  and  has  under 
taken  to  instruct  us,  not  only  in  the  knowl 
edge  of  their  principles,  but  of  their  respective 
pedigrees  also.  He  has  ascended  to  their 
origin,  and  run  out  their  genealogies.  With 
most  exemplary  modesty  he  speaks  of  the 
party  to  which  he  professes  to  have  himself 
belonged,  as  the  true  pure,  the  only  honest, 
patriotic  party,  derived  by  regular  descent, 
from  father  to  son,  from  the  time  of  the  virtu 
ous  Romans!  Spreading  before  us  the  fam 
ily  tree  of  political  parties,  he  takes  especial 
care  to  show  himself  snugly  perched  on  a 
popular  bough  !  He  is  wakeful  to  the  expedi 
ency  of  adopting  such  rules  of  descent  as  shall 
bring  him  in,  to  the  exclusion  of  others,  as  an 
heir  to  the  inheritance  of  all  public  virtue,  and 
all  true  political  principle.  His  party  and  his 
176 


SDaniri 


opinions  are  sure  to  be  orthodox;  heterodoxy 
is  confined  to  his  opponents.  He  spoke,  sir, 
of  the  Federalists,  and  I  thought  I  saw  some 
eyes  begin  to  open  and  stare  a  little,  when  he 
ventured  on  that  ground.  I  expected  he  would 
draw  his  sketches  rather  lightly  when  he  looked 
on  the  circle  round  him,  and  especially  if  he 
should  cast  his  thoughts  to  the  high  places  out 
of  the  Senate.  Nevertheless,  he  went  back  to 
Rome,  ad  annum  urbis  condita,  and  found  the 
fathers  of  the  Federalists  in  the  primeval  aris- 
tocats  of  that  renowned  city !  He  traced  the 
flow  of  Federal  blood  down  through  succes 
sive  ages  and  centuries,  till  he  brought  it  into 
the  veins  of  the  American  Tories,  of  whom,  by 
the  way,  there  were  twenty  in  the  Carolinas 
for  one  in  Massachusetts.  From  the  Tories 
he  followed  it  to  the  Federalists;  and  as  the 
Federal  party  was  broken  up,  and  there  was 
no  possibility  of  transmitting  it  further  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  he  seems  to  have  dis 
covered  that  it  has  gone  off  collaterally,  though 
against  all  the  canons  of  descent,  into  the  Ultras 
of  France,  and  finally  become  extinguished,  like 
exploded  gas,  among  the  adherents  of  Don 
Miguel ! 

This,  sir,  is  an  abstract  of  the  gentleman's 
history  of  Federalism.  I  am  not  about  to  con 
trovert  it.  It  is  not,  at  present,  worth  the  pains 
of  refutation;  because,  sir,  if  at  this  day  any 
one  feels  the  sin  of  Federalism  lying  heavily  on 
his  conscience,  he  can  easily  procure  remission. 
177 


American 


He  may  even  obtain  an  indulgence  if  he  be 
desirous  of  repeating  the  same  transgression. 
It  is  an  affair  of  no  difficulty  to  get  into  this 
right  line  of  patriotic  descent.  A  man  nowa 
days  is  at  liberty  to  choose  his  political  parent 
age.  He  may  elect  his  own  father.  Federalist 
or  not,  he  may,  if  he  choose,  claim  to  belong 
to  the  favored  stock,  and  his  claim  will  be  al 
lowed.  He  may  carry  back  his  pretensions  just 
as  far  as  the  honorable  gentleman  himself;  nay, 
he  may  make  himself  out  the  honorable  gentle 
man's  cousin,  and  prove,  satisfactorily,  that  he  is 
descended  from  the  same  political  great-grand 
father.  All  this  is  allowable.  We  all  know  a 
process,  sir,  by  which  the  whole  Essex  Junto 
could,  in  one  hour,  be  all  washed  white  from 
their  ancient  Federalism,  and  come  out,  every 
one  of  them,  original  Democrats,  dyed  in  the 
wool  !  Some  of  them  have  actually  undergone 
the  operation,  and  they  say  it  is  quite  easy.  The 
only  inconvenience  it  occasions,  as  they  tell  us, 
is  a  slight  tendency  of  the  blood  to  the  face,  a 
soft  suffusion,  which,  however,  is  very  transient, 
since  nothing  is  said  by  those  whom  they  join 
calculated  to  deepen  the  red  on  the  cheek,  but 
a  prudent  silence  is  observed  in  regard  to  all 
the  past.  Indeed,  sir,  some  smiles  of  appror 
bation  have  been  bestowed,  and  some  crumbs 
of  comfort  have  fallen  not  a  thousand  miles 
from  the  door  of  the  Hartford  Convention  it 
self.  And  if  the  author  of  the  Ordinance  of 
1787  possessed  the  other  requisite  qualifications, 
178 


SDaniel 


there  is  no  knowing,  notwithstanding  his  Fed 
eralism,  to  what  heights  of  favor  he  might  not 
yet  attain. 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare,  such 
as  it  is,  into  New  England,  the  honorable  gentle 
man  all  along  professes  to  be  acting  on  the 
defensive.  He  chooses  to  consider  me  as  hav 
ing  assailed  South  Carolina,  and  insists  that  he 
comes  forth  only  as  her  champion,  and  in  her 
defense.  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  that  I  made  any 
attack  whatever  on  South  Carolina.  Nothing 
like  it.  The  honorable  member,  in  his  first 
speech,  expressed  opinions  in  regard  to  rev 
enue  and  some  other  topics  which  I  heard 
both  with  pain  and  with  surprise.  I  told  the 
gentleman  I  was  aware  that  such  sentiments 
were  entertained  out  of  the  government,  but 
had  not  expected  to  find  them  advanced  in  it; 
that  I  knew  there  were  persons  in  the  South 
who  speak  of  our  Union  with  indifference  or 
doubt,  taking  pains  to  magnify  its  evils,  and 
to  say  nothing  of  its  benefits;  that  the  honor 
able  member  himself,  I  was  sure,  could  never 
be  one  of  these ;  and  I  regretted  the  expression 
of  such  opinions  as  he  had  avowed,  because  I 
thought  their  obvious  tendency  was  to  en 
courage  feelings  of  disrespect  to  the  Union, 
and  to  impair  its  strength.  This,  sir,  is  the 
sum  and  substance  of  all  I  said  on  the  subject. 
And  this  constitutes  the  attack  which  called 
on  the  chivalry  of  the  gentleman,  in  his  own 
opinion,  to  harry  us  with  such  a  foray  among 
179 


jftemorafcle  American 


the  party  pamphlets  and  party  proceedings  of 
Massachusetts  !  If  he  means  that  I  spoke  with 
dissatisfaction  or  disrespect  of  the  ebullitions 
of  individuals  in  South  Carolina,  it  is  true. 
But  if  he  means  that  I  assailed  the  character 
of  the  state,  her  honor,  or  patriotism,  that  I 
reflected  on  her  history  or  her  conduct,  he  has 
not  the  slightest  ground  for  any  such  as 
sumption.  I  did  not  even  refer,  I  think,  in  my 
observations,  to  any  collection  of  individuals. 
I  said  nothing  of  the  recent  conventions.  I 
spoke  in  the  most  guarded  and  careful  manner, 
and  only  expressed  my  regret  for  the  pub 
lication  of  opinions,  which  I  presumed  the 
honorable  member  disapproved  as  much  as 
myself.  In  this,  it  seems,  I  was  mistaken.  I  do 
not  remember  that  the  gentleman  has  dis 
claimed  any  sentiment,  or  any  opinion,  of  a 
supposed  anti-union  tendency,  which  on  all  or 
any  of  the  recent  occasions  has  been  expressed. 
The  whole  drift  of  his  speech  has  been  rather 
to  prove  that,  in  divers  times  and  manners, 
sentiments  equally  liable  to  my  objection  have 
been  avowed  in  New  England.  And  one 
would  suppose  that  his  object,  in  this  reference 
to  Massachusetts,  was  to  find  a  precedent  to 
justify  proceedings  in  the  South,  were  it  not 
for  the  reproach  and  contumely  with  which  he 
labors,  all  along,  to  load  these  his  own  chosen 
precedents.  By  way  of  defending  South  Caro 
lina  from  what  he  chooses  to  think  an  attack 
on  her,  he  first  quotes  the  example  of  Massa- 
180 


2Daniel  Wtbgttt 


chusetts,  and  then  denounces  that  example  in 
good  set  terms.  This  twofold  purpose,  not 
very  consistent,  one  would  think,  with  itself, 
was  exhibited  more  than  once  in  the  course  of 
his  speech.  He  referred,  for  instance,  to  the 
Hartford  Convention.  Did  he  do  this  for  au 
thority,  for  a  topic  of  reproach  ?  Apparently 
for  both,  for  he  told  us  that  he  should  find  no 
fault  with  the  mere  fact  of  holding  such  a  con 
vention,  and  considering  and  discussing  such 
questions  as  he  supposes  were  then  and  there 
discussed ;  but  what  rendered  it  obnoxious 
was  its  being  held  at  the  time,  and  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  country  then  existing. 
We  were  in  a  war,  he  said,  and  the  country 
needed  all  our  aid ;  the  hand  of  government 
required  to  be  strengthened,  not  weakened; 
and  patriotism  should  have  postponed  such 
proceedings  to  another  day.  The  thing  itself, 
then,  is  a  precedent;  the  time  and  manner 
of  it  only  a  subject  of  censure. 

Now,  sir,  I  go  much  further  on  this  point 
than  the  honorable  member.  Supposing,  as 
the  gentleman  seems  to  do,  that  the  Hartford 
Convention  assembled  for  any  such  purpose 
as  breaking  up  the  Union,  because  they  thought 
unconstitutional  laws  had  been  passed,  or  to 
consult  on  that  subject,  or  to  calculate  the 
value  of  the  Union ;  supposing  this  to  be  their 
purpose,  or  any  part  of  it,  then  I  say  the 
meeting  itself  was  disloyal,  and  was  obnoxious 
to  censure,  whether  held  in  time  of  peace  or 
181 


American 


time  of  war,  or  under  whatever  circumstances. 
The  material  question  is  the  object.  Is  disso 
lution  the  object?  If  it  be,  external  circum 
stances  may  make  it  a  more  or  less  aggravated 
case,  but  cannot  affect  the  principle.  I  do  not 
hold,  therefore,  sir,  that  the  Hartford  Con 
vention  was  pardonable,  even  to  the  extent  of 
the  gentleman's  admission,  if  its  objects  were 
really  such  as  have  been  imputed  to  it.  Sir, 
there  never  was  a  time,  under  any  degree  of 
excitement,  in  which  the  Hartford  Convention, 
or  any  other  convention,  could  have  main 
tained  itself  one  moment  in  New  England,  if 
assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as  the  gen 
tleman  says  would  have  been  an  allowable 
purpose.  To  hold  conventions  to  decide  con 
stitutional  law!  To  try  the  binding  validity 
of  statutes  by  votes  in  a  convention  !  Sir,  the 
Hartford  Convention,  I  presume,  would  not 
desire  that  the  honorable  gentleman  should  be 
their  defender  or  advocate,  if  he  puts  their 
case  upon  such  untenable  and  extravagant 
grounds. 

Then,  sir,  the  gentleman  has  no  fault  to  find 
with  these  recently  promulgated  South  Caro 
lina  opinions.  And  certainly  he  need  have  none  ; 
for  his  own  sentiments,  as  now  advanced,  and 
advanced  on  reflection,  as  far  as  I  have  been 
able  to  comprehend  them,  go  the  full  length  of 
all  these  opinions.  I  propose,  sir,  to  say  some 
thing  on  these,  and  to  consider  how  far  they 
are  just  and  constitutional.  Before  doing  that, 
182 


Daniel 


however,  let  me  observe  that  the  eulogium  pro 
nounced  by  the  honorable  gentleman  on  the 
character  of  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  for 
her  Revolutionary  and  other  merits,  meets  my 
hearty  concurrence.  I  shall  not  acknowledge 
that  the  honorable  member  goes  before  me  in 
regard  for  whatever  of  distinguished  talent,  or 
distinguished  character,  South  Carolina  has 
produced.  I  claim  part  of  the  honor;  I  partake 
in  the  pride  of  her  great  names.  I  claim  them 
for  countrymen,  one  and  all,  the  Laurenses,  the 
Rutledges,  the  Pinckneys,  the  Sumters,  the 
Marions,  Americans  all,  whose  fame  is  no  more 
to  be  hemmed  in  by  state  lines,  than  their  tal 
ents  and  patriotism  were  capable  of  being  cir 
cumscribed  within  the  same  narrow  limits.  In 
their  day  and  generation,  they  served  and  hon 
ored  the  country,  and  the  whole  country;  and 
their  renown  is  of  the  treasures  of  the  whole 
country.  Him  whose  honored  name  the  gen 
tleman  himself  bears, — does  he  esteem  me  less 
capable  of  gratitude  for  his  patriotism,  or  sym 
pathy  for  his  sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes  had 
first  opened  upon  the  light  of  Massachusetts 
instead  of  South  Carolina  ?  Sir,  does  he  sup 
pose  it  in  his  power  to  exhibit  a  Carolina  name 
so  bright  as  to  produce  envy  in  my  bosom  ? 
No,  sir;  increased  gratification  and  delight 
rather.  I  thank  God  that,  if  I  am  gifted  with 
little  of  the  spirit  which  is  able  to  raise  mortals 
to  the  skies,  I  have  yet  none,  as  I  trust,  of  that 
other  spirit  which  would  drag  angels  down. 
183 


American 


When  I  shall  be  found,  sir,  in  my  place  here 
in  the  Senate,  or  elsewhere,  to  sneer  at  public 
merit  because  it  happens  to  spring  up  beyond 
the  little  limits  of  my  own  state  or  neighbor 
hood;  when  I  refuse,  for  any  such  cause,  or  for 
any  cause,  the  homage  due  to  American  tal 
ent,  to  elevated  patriotism,  to  sincere  devotion 
to  liberty  and  the  country;  or  if  I  see  an  uncom 
mon  endowment  of  Heaven,  if  I  see  extraordi 
nary  capacity  and  virtue,  in  any  son  of  the 
South,  and  if,  moved  by  local  prejudice  or  gan 
grened  by  state  jealousy,  I  get  up  here  to  abate 
the  tithe  of  a  hair  from  his  just  character  and 
just  fame,  may  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof 
of  my  mouth  ! 

Sir,  let  me  recur  to  pleasing  recollections; 
let  me  indulge  in  refreshing  remembrance  of 
the  past;  let  me  remind  you  that,  in  early 
times,  no  states  cherished  greater  harmony, 
both  of  principle  and  feeling,  than  Massachu 
setts  and  South  Carolina.  Would  to  God  that 
harmony  might  again  return!  Shoulder  to 
shoulder  they  went  through  the  Revolution; 
hand  in  hand  they  stood  round  the  administra 
tion  of  Washington,  and  felt  his  own  great  arm 
lean  on  them  for  support.  Unkind  feeling,  if 
it  exist,  alienation,  and  distrust  are  the  growth, 
unnatural  to  such  soils,  of  false  principles  since 
sown.  They  are  weeds,  the  seeds  of  which 
that  same  great  arm  never  scattered. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomium 
upon  Massachusetts;  she  needs  none.  There 
184 


SDaniel  Wtbgttt 


she  is.  Behold  her,  and  judge  for  yourselves. 
There  is  her  history;  the  world  knows  it  by 
heart.  The  past,  at  least,  is  secure.  There  is 
Boston,  and  Concord,  and  Lexington,  and 
Bunker  Hill;  and  there  they  will  remain  for 
ever.  The  bones  of  her  sons,  failing  in  the 
great  struggle  for  independence,  now  lie  min 
gled  with  the  soil  of  every  state  from  New 
England  to  Georgia;  and  there  they  will  lie 
forever.  And,  sir,  where  American  liberty 
raised  its  first  voice,  and  where  its  youth 
was  nurtured  and  sustained,  there  it  still  lives, 
in  the  strength  of  its  manhood  and  full  of  its 
original  spirit.  If  discord  and  disunion  shall 
wound  it,  if  party  strife  and  blind  ambition 
shall  hawk  at  and  tear  it,  if  folly  and  madness, 
if  uneasiness  under  salutary  and  necessary 
restraint,  shall  succeed  in  separating  it  from 
that  union,  by  which  alone  its  existence  is  made 
sure,  it  will  stand,  in  the  end,  by  the  side  of 
that  cradle  in  which  its  infancy  was  rocked; 
it  will  stretch  forth  its  arm  with  whatever  of 
vigor  it  may  still  retain  over  the  friends  who 
gather  round  it;  and  it  will  fall  at  last,  if  fall 
it  must,  amidst  the  proudest  monuments  of  its 
own  glory,  and  on  the  very  spot  of  its  origin. 
There  yet  remains  to  be  performed,  Mr. 
President,  by  far  the  most  grave  and  important 
duty,  which  I  feel  to  be  devolved  on  me  by 
this  occasion.  It  is  to  state,  and  to  defend, 
what  I  conceive  to  be  the  true  principles  of 
the  Constitution  under  which  we  are  here 
185 


American 


assembled.  I  might  well  have  desired  that  so 
weighty  a  task  should  have  fallen  into  other 
and  abler  hands.  I  could  have  wished  that  it 
should  have  been  executed  by  those  whose 
character  and  experience  give  weight  and  influ 
ence  to  their  opinions,  such  as  cannot  possibly 
belong  to  mine.  But,  sir,  I  have  met  the  oc 
casion,  not  sought  it;  and  I  shall  proceed  to 
state  my  own  sentiments,  without  challenging 
for  them  any  particular  regard,  with  studied 
plainness,  and  as  much  precision  as  possible. 

I  understand  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  to  maintain  that  it  is  a  right 
of  the  state  legislatures  to  interfere  whenever, 
in  their  judgment,  this  government  transcends 
its  constitutional  limits,  and  to  arrest  the  oper 
ation  of  its  laws. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right,  as 
a  right  existing  under  the  Constitution,  not  as 
a  right  to  overthrow  it  on  the  ground  of  ex 
treme  necessity,  such  as  would  justify  violent 
revolution. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority, 
on  the  part  of  the  states,  thus  to  interfere,  for 
the  purpose  of  correcting  the  exercise  of  power 
by  the  general  government,  of  checking  it  and 
of  compelling  it  to  conform  to  their  opinion  of 
the  extent  of  its  powers. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  that  the  ulti 

mate  power  of  judging  of  the  constitutional 

extent  of  its  own  authority  is  not  lodged  exclu 

sively  in  the  general  government,  or  any  branch 

1  86 


Daniel 


of  it;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  states  may 
lawfully  decide  for  themselves,  and  each  state 
for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of 
the  general  government  transcends  its  power. 

I  understand  him  to  insist  that  if  the  exi 
gency  of  the  case,  in  the  opinion  of  any  state 
government,  requires  it,  such  state  government 
may,  by  its  own  sovereign  authority,  annul  an 
act  of  the  general  government  which  it  deems 
plainly  and  palpably  unconstitutional. 

This  is  the  sum  of  what  I  understand  from 
him  to  be  the  South  Carolina  doctrine,  and 
the  doctrine  which  he  maintains.  I  propose 
to  consider  it,  and  compare  it  with  the  Consti 
tution.  Allow  me  to  say,  as  a  preliminary 
remark,  that  I  call  this  the  South  Carolina 
doctrine  only  because  the  gentleman  himself 
has  so  denominated  it.  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty 
to  say  that  South  Carolina,  as  a  state,  has 
ever  advanced  these  sentiments.  I  hope  she 
has  not,  and  never  may.  That  a  great  major 
ity  of  her  people  are  opposed  to  the  tariff  laws 
is  doubtless  true.  That  a  majority,  somewhat 
less  than  that  just  mentioned,  conscientiously 
believe  these  laws  unconstitutional  may  prob 
ably  also  be  true.  But  that  any  majority 
holds  to  the  right  of  direct  state  interference 
at  state  discretion,  the  right  of  nullifying  acts 
of  Congress  by  acts  of  state  legislation,  is 
more  than  I  know,  and  what  I  shall  be  slow  to 
believe. 

That  there  are  individuals  besides  the  honor- 
187 


;jttemoraWe  American 


able  gentleman  who  do  maintain  these  opinions 
is  quite  certain.  I  recollect  the  recent  ex 
pression  of  a  sentiment  which  circumstances 
attending  its  utterance  and  publication  justify 
us  in  supposing  was  not  unpremeditated.  "  The 
sovereignty  of  the  state,  —  never  to  be  con 
trolled,  construed,  or  decided  on  but  by  her 
own  feelings  of  honorable  justice." 

[Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said,  that,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  being  clearly  understood,  he  would  state  that 
his  proposition  was,  in  the  words  of  the  Virginia  res 
olution,  as  follows  :  — 

"That  this  assembly  doth  explicitly  and  perempto 
rily  declare,  that  it  views  the  powers  of  the  federal 
government,  as  resulting  from  the  compact  to  which 
the  states  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the  plain  sense 
and  intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that 
compact,  as  no  further  valid  than  they  are  authorized 
by  the  grants  enumerated  in  that  compact;  and  that, 
in  case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous 
exercise  of  other  powers  not  granted  by  the  said 
compact,  the  states  who  are  parties  thereto  have  the 
right,  and  are  in  duty  bound,  to  interpose,  for  ar 
resting  the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining 
within  their  respective  limits  the  authorities,  rights, 
and  liberties  appertaining  to  them." 

Mr.Webster  resumed.] 

I  am  quite  aware,  Mr.  President,  of  the 
existence  of  the  resolution  which  the  gentle 
man  read,  and  has  now  repeated,  and  that 
he  relies  on  it  as  his  authority.  I  know  the 
source,  too,  from  which  it  is  understood  to 
have  proceeded.  I  need  not  say  that  I  have 
much  respect  for  the  constitutional  opinions 
of  Mr.  Madison;  they  would  weigh  greatly 
188 


with  me  always.  But  before  the  authority  of 
his  opinion  be  vouched  for  the  gentleman's 
proposition,  it  will  be  proper  to  consider  what 
is  the  fair  interpretation  of  that  resolution,  to 
which  Mr.  Madison  is  understood  to  have 
given  his  sanction.  As  the  gentleman  con 
strues  it,  it  is  an  authority  for  him.  Possibly 
he  may  not  have  adopted  the  right  con 
struction.  That  resolution  declares  that  in 
the  case  of  the  dangerous  exercise  of  powers 
not  granted  by  the  general  government,  the 
states  may  interpose  to  arrest  the  progress 
of  the  evil.  But  how  interpose,  and  what 
does  this  declaration  purport  ?  Does  it  mean 
no  more  than  that  there  may  be  extreme  cases 
in  which  the  people,  in  any  mode  of  assembling, 
may  resist  usurpation,  and  relieve  themselves 
from  a  tyrannical  government  ?  No  one  will 
deny  this.  Such  resistance  is  not  only  ac 
knowledged  to  be  just  in  America,  but  in 
England  also;  Blackstone  admits  as  much,  in 
the  theory  and  practice,  too,  of  the  English 
constitution.  We,  sir,  who  oppose  the  Caro 
lina  doctrine,  do  not  deny  that  the  people 
may,  if  they  choose,  throw  off  any  government 
when  it  becomes  oppressive  and  intolerable, 
and  erect  a  better  in  its  stead?  We  all  know 
that  civil  institutions  are  established  for  the 
public  benefit,  and  that  when  they  cease  to  an 
swer  the  ends  of  their  existence  they  may  be 
changed.  But  I  do  not  understand  the  doctrine 
now  contended  for  to  be  that,  which,  for  the 
189 


American 


sake  of  distinction,  we  may  call  the  right  of 
revolution.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to 
maintain  that  without  revolution,  without  civil 
commotion,  without  rebellion,  a  remedy  for  sup 
posed  abuse  and  transgression  of  the  powers 
of  the  general  government  lies  in  a  direct 
appeal  to  the  interference  of  the  state  govern 
ments. 

[Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said  he  did  not  contend 
for  the  mere  right  of  revolution,  but  for  the  right  of 
constitutional  resistance.  What  he  maintained  was, 
that  in  case  of  a  plain,  palpable  violation  of  the  Consti 
tution  by  the  general  government,  a  state  may  inter 
pose;  and  that  this  interposition  is  constitutional. 
Mr.  Webster  resumed.] 

So,  sir,  I  understood  the  gentleman,  and 
am  happy  to  find  that  I  did  not  misunderstand 
him.  What  he  contends  for  is,  that  it  is 
constitutional  to  interrupt  the  administration 
of  the  Constitution  itself,  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  are  chosen  and  sworn  to  administer  it,  by 
the  direct  interference,  in  form  of  law,  of  the 
states,  in  virtue  of  their  sovereign  capacity. 
The  inherent  right  in  the  people  to  reform 
their  government  I  do  not  deny;  and  they 
have  another  right,  and  that  is  to  resist  un 
constitutional  laws  without  overturning  the 
government.  It  is  no  doctrine  of  mine  that 
unconstitutional  laws  bind  the  people.  The 
great  question  is,  whose  prerogative  is  it  to 
decide  on  the  constitutionality  or  unconstitu 
tionally  of  the  laws?  On  that  the  main 
debate  hinges,  The  proposition  that  in  case 
190 


2Danid  Wtbgttt 


of  a  supposed  violation  of  the  Constitution 
by  Congress  the  states  have  a  constitutional 
right  to  interfere  and  annul  the  law  of  Con 
gress  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman. 
I  do  not  admit  it.  If  the  gentleman  had 
intended  no  more  than  to  assert  the  right  of 
revolution  for  justifiable  cause,  he  would  have 
said  only  what  all  agreed  to.  But  I  cannot 
conceive  that  there  can  be  a  middle  course  be 
tween  submission  to  the  laws,  when  regularly 
pronounced  constitutional,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  open  resistance,  which  is  revolution  or 
rebellion,  on  the  other.  I  say  the  right  of  a 
state  to  annul  a  law  of  Congress  cannot  be 
maintained  but  on  the  ground  of  the  inalien 
able  right  of  man  to  resist  oppression ;  that  is 
to  say,  upon  the  ground  of  revolution.  I 
admit  that  there  is  an  ultimate  violent  remedy, 
above  the  Constitution  and  in  defiance  of  the 
Constitution,  which  may  be  resorted  to  when 
a  revolution  is  to  be  justified.  But  I  do  not 
admit  that  under  the  Constitution,  and  in 
conformity  with  it,  there  is  any  mode  in  which 
a  state  government,  as  a  member  of  the 
Union,  can  interfere  and  stop  the  progress  of 
the  general  government  by  force  of  her  own 
laws,  under  any  circumstances  whatever. 

This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of 
this  government,  and  the  source  of  its  power. 
Whose  agent  is  it  ?  Is  it  the  creature  of  the 
state  legislatures,  or  the  creature  of  the  peo 
ple  ?  If  the  government  of  the  United  States 

IQI 


American 


be  the  agent  of  the  state  governments,  then 
they  may  control  it,  provided  they  can  agree 
in  the  manner  of  controlling  it  ;  if  it  be  the 
agent  of  the  people,  then  the  people  alone 
can  control  it,  restrain  it,  modify  or  reform  it. 
It  is  observable  enough  that  the  doctrine  for 
which  the  honorable  gentleman  contends  leads 
him  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining  not  only 
that  this  general  government  is  the  creature  of 
the  states,  but  that  it  is  the  creature  of  each 
of  the  states  severally,  so  that  each  may  assert 
the  power  for  itself  of  determining  whether  it 
acts  within  the  limits  of  its  authority.  It  is 
the  servant  of  four-and-twenty  masters,  of 
different  wills  and  different  purposes,  and  yet 
bound  to  obey  all.  This  absurdity  (for  it 
seems  no  less)  arises  from  a  misconception  as 
to  the  origin  of  this  government  and  its  true 
character.  It  is,  sir,  the  people's  Constitu 
tion,  the  people's  government;  made  for  the 
people,  made  by  the  people,  and  answerable 
to  the  people.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  declared  that  this  Constitution 
shall  be  the  supreme  law.  We  must  either 
admit  the  proposition  or  dispute  their  author 
ity.  The  states  are,  unquestionably,  sovereign, 
so  far  as  their  sovereignty  is  not  affected  by  the 
supreme  law.  But  the  state  legislatures,  as  pol 
itical  bodies,  however  sovereign,  are  yet  not  sov 
ereign  over  the  people.  So  far  as  the  people 
have  given  power  to  the  general  government, 
so  far  the  grant  is  unquestionably  good,  and 
192 


SDaniel 


the  government  holds  of  the  people,  and  not 
of  the  state  governments.  We  are  all  agents 
of  the  same  supreme  power, —  the  people. 
The  general  government  and  the  state  govern 
ments  derive  their  authority  from  the  same 
source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the  other, 
be  called  primary,  though  one  is  definite  and 
restricted,  and  the  other  general  and  residuary. 
The  national  government  possesses  those  pow 
ers  which  it  can  be  shown  the  people  have 
conferred  on  it,  and  no  more.  All  the  rest 
belongs  to  the  state  governments,  or  to  the 
people  themselves.  So  far  as  the  people  have 
restrained  state  sovereignty  by  the  expression 
of  their  will  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  so  far,  it  must  be  admitted,  state  sover 
eignty  is  effectually  controlled.  I  do  not  con 
tend  that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be,  controlled 
further.  The  sentiment  to  which  I  have  re 
ferred  propounds  that  state  sovereignty  is 
only  to  be  controlled  by  its  own  "feeling  of 
justice" ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  not  to  be  controlled 
at  all,  for  one  who  is  to  follow  his  own  feelings 
is  under  no  legal  control.  Now,  however 
men  may  think  this  ought  to  be,  the  fact  is, 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States  have 
chosen  to  impose  control  on  state  sovereign 
ties.  There  are  those,  doubtless,  who  wish 
they  had  been  left  without  restraint ;  but  the 
Constitution  has  ordered  the  matter  different 
ly.  To  make  war,  for  instance,  is  an  exercise 
of  sovereignty;  but  the  Constitution  declares 
193 


American 


that  no  state  shall  make  war.  To  coin  money 
is  another  exercise  of  sovereign  power;  but 
no  state  is  at  liberty  to  coin  money.  Again, 
the  Constitution  says  that  no  sovereign  state 
shall  be  so  sovereign  as  to  make  a  treaty. 
These  prohibitions,  it  must  be  confessed,  are 
a  control  on  the  state  sovereignty  of  South 
Carolina,  as  well  as  of  the  other  states,  which 
does  not  arise  "from  her  own  feelings  of 
honorable  justice."  The  opinion  referred  to, 
therefore,  is  in  defiance  of  the  plainest  pro 
visions  of  the  Constitution. 

There  are  other  proceedings  of  public  bodies 
which  have  already  been  alluded  to,  and  to 
which  I  refer  again  for  the  purpose  of  ascer 
taining  more  fully  what  is  the  length  and 
breadth  of  that  doctrine,  denominated  the  Caro 
lina  doctrine,  which  the  honorable  member  has 
now  stood  up  on  this  floor  to  maintain.  In  one 
of  them  I  find  it  resolved  that  "the  tariff  of 
1  828,  and  every  other  tariff  designed  to  promote 
one  branch  of  industry  at  the  expense  of  others, 
is  contrary  to  the  meaning  and  intention  of  the 
federal  compact;  and  such  a  dangerous,  palpa 
ble,  and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  by 
a  determined  majority,  wielding  the  general 
government  beyond  the  limits  of  its  delegated 
powers,  as  calls  upon  the  states  which  com 
pose  the  suffering  minority,  in  their  sovereign 
capacity,  to  exercise  the  powers  which,  as 
sovereigns,  necessarily  devolve  upon  them, 
when  their  compact  is  violated." 
194 


Observe,  sir,  that  this  resolution  holds  the 
tariff  of  1828,  and  every  other  tariff  designed 
to  promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the  ex 
pense  of  another,  to  be  such  a  dangerous, 
palpable,  and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power, 
as  calls  upon  the  states,  in  their  sovereign 
capacity,  to  interfere  by  their  own  authority. 
This  denunciation,  Mr.  President,  you  will 
please  to  observe,  includes  our  old  tariff  of 
1816,  as  well  as  all  others;  because  that  was 
established  to  promote  the  interest  of  the 
manufacturers  of  cotton,  to  the  manifest  and 
admitted  injury  of  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade. 
Observe,  again,  that  all  the  qualifications  are 
here  rehearsed  and  charged  upon  the  tariff, 
which  are  necessary  to  bring  the  case  within 
the  gentleman's  proposition.  The  tariff  is  a 
usurpation;  it  is  a  dangerous  usurpation;  it  is 
a  palpable  usurpation;  it  is  a  deliberate  usur 
pation.  It  is  such  a  usurpation,  therefore,  as 
calls  upon  the  states  to  exercise  their  right  of 
interference.  Here  is  a  case,  then,  within  the 
gentleman's  principles,  and  all  his  qualifications 
of  his  principles.  It  is  a  case  for  action.  The 
Constitution  is  plainly,  dangerously,  palpably, 
and  deliberately  violated;  and  the  states  must 
interpose  their  own  authority  to  arrest  the 
law.  Let  us  suppose  the  state  of  South  Caro 
lina  to  express  this  same  opinion  by  the  voice 
of  her  legislature.  That  would  be  very  impos 
ing;  but  what  then?  Is  the  voice  of  one  state 
conclusive?  It  so  happens  that,  at  the  very 


American 


moment  when  South  Carolina  resolves  that 
the  tariff  laws  are  unconstitutional,  Pennsylva 
nia  and  Kentucky  resolve  exactly  the  reverse. 
They  hold  those  laws  to  be  both  highly  proper 
and  strictly  constitutional.  And  now,  sir,  how 
does  the  honorable  member  propose  to  deal 
with  this  case  ?  How  does  he  relieve  us  from 
this  difficulty,  upon  any  principle  of  his  ?  His 
construction  gets  us  into  it;  how  does  he  pro 
pose  to  get  us  out  ? 

In  Carolina,  the  tariff  is  a  palpable,  delib 
erate  usurpation;  Carolina,  therefore,  may 
nullify  it,  and  refuse  to  pay  the  duties.  In 
Pennsylvania,  it  is  both  clearly  constitutional 
and  highly  expedient;  and  there  the  duties  are 
to  be  paid.  And  yet  we  live  under  a  govern 
ment  of  uniform  laws,  and  under  a  Constitu 
tion,  too,  which  contains  an  express  provision, 
as  it  happens,  that  all  duties  shall  be  equal 
in  all  the  states.  Does  not  this  approach 
absurdity  ? 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such  questions, 
independent  of  either  of  the  states,  is  not  the 
whole  Union  a  rope  of  sand?  Are  we  not 
thrown  back  again,  precisely,  upon  the  old 
Confederation  ? 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four-and- 
twenty  interpreters  of  constitutional  law,  each 
with  a  power  to  decide  for  itself,  and  none  with 
authority  to  bind  anybody  else,  and  this  consti 
tutional  law  the  only  bond  of  their  union! 
What  is  such  a  state  of  things  but  a  mere  con- 
196 


SDaniel 


nection  during  pleasure,  or,  to  use  the  phrase 
ology  of  the  times,  during  feeling?  And  that 
feeling,  too,  not  the  feeling  of  the  people  who 
established  the  Constitution,  but  the  feeling  of 
the  state  governments. 

In  another  of  the  South  Carolina  addresses, 
having  premised  that  the  crisis  requires  "all 
the  concentrated  energy  of  passion,"  an  atti 
tude  of  open  resistance  to  the  laws  of  the 
Union  is  advised.  Open  resistance  to  the  laws, 
then,  is  the  constitutional  remedy,  the  conser 
vative  power  of  the  state  which  the  South 
Carolina  doctrines  teach  for  the  redress  of  po 
litical  evils,  real  or  imaginary.  And  its  authors 
further  say,  that,  appealing  with  confidence  to 
the  Constitution  itself  to  justify  their  opin 
ions,  they  cannot  consent  to  try  their  accuracy 
by  the  courts  of  justice.  In  one  sense,  indeed, 
sir,  this  is  assuming  an  attitude  of  open  re 
sistance  in  favor  of  liberty.  But  what  sort  of 
liberty  ?  The  liberty  of  establishing  their  own 
opinions  in  defiance  of  the  opinions  of  all 
others;  the  liberty  of  judging  and  of  deciding 
exclusively  themselves  in  a  matter  in  which 
others  have  as  much  right  to  judge  and  decide 
as  they;  the  liberty  of  placing  their  own  opin 
ions  above  the  judgment  of  all  others,  above 
the  laws,  and  above  the  Constitution.  This  is 
their  liberty,  and  this  is  the  fair  result  of  the 
proposition  contended  for  by  the  honorable 
gentleman.  Or,  it  may  be  more  properly  said, 
it  is  identical  with  it,  rather  than  a  result  from 
197 


American 


it.  In  the  same  publication  we  find  the  fol 
lowing:  "Previously  to  our  Revolution,  when 
the  arm  of  oppression  was  stretched  over  New 
England,  where  did  our  Northern  brethren 
meet  with  a  braver  sympathy  than  that  which 
sprung  from  the  bosoms  of  Carolinians  ?  We 
had  no  extortion,  no  oppression,  no  collision 
with  the  king's  ministers,  no  navigation  interests 
springing  up,  in  envious  rivalry  of  England." 

This  seems  extraordinary  language.  South 
Carolina  no  collision  with  the  king's  ministers 
in  1775  !  No  extortion!  No  oppression  !  But, 
sir,  it  is  also  most  significant  language.  Does 
any  man  doubt  the  purpose  for  which  it  was 
penned  ?  Can  any  one  fail  to  see  that  it  was 
designed  to  raise  in  the  reader's  mind  the 
question,  whether,  af  this  time,  —  that  is  to 
say,  in  1828,  —  South  Carolina  has  any  colli 
sion  with  the  king's  ministers,  any  oppression, 
or  extortion,  to  fear  from  England  ?  Whether, 
in  short,  England  is  not  as  naturally  the  friend 
of  South  Carolina  as  New  England,  with  her 
navigation  interests  springing  up  in  envious 
rivalry  of  England  ? 

Is  it  not  strange,  sir,  that  an  intelligent  man 
in  South  Carolina,  in  1828,  should  thus  labor 
to  prove  that,  in  1775,  there  was  no  hostility, 
no  cause  of  war,  between  South  Carolina  and 
England  ?  That  she  had  no  occasion,  in  refer 
ence  to  her  own  interest,  or  from  a  regard  to 
her  own  welfare,  to  take  up  arms  in  the  Revo 
lutionary  contest  ?  Can  any  one  account  for 
198 


3DanieI  Wtb&ttt 


the  expression  of  such  strange  sentiments,  and 
their  circulation  through  the  state,  otherwise 
than  by  supposing  the  object  to  be  what  I 
have  already  intimated,  to  raise  the  question, 
if  they  had  no  * ' ''collision? '  (mark  the  expres 
sion)  with  the  ministers  of  King  George  the 
Third,  in  1/75,  what  collision  have  they,  in 
1828,  with  the  ministers  of  King  George  the 
Fourth?  What  is  there  now  in  the  existing 
state  of  things,  to  separate  Carolina  from  Old, 
more,  or  rather,  than  from  New  England  ? 

Resolutions,  sir,  have  been  recently  passed 
by  the  legislature  of  South  Carolina.  I  need 
not  refer  to  them ;  they  go  no  farther  than  the 
honorable  gentleman  himself  has  gone,  and  I 
hope  not  so  far.  I  content  myself,  therefore, 
with  debating  the  matter  with  him. 

And  now,  sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say  on 
this  subject  is,  that  at  no  time,  and  under  no 
circumstances,  has  New  England,  or  any  state 
in  New  England,  or  any  respectable  body  of 
persons  in  New  England,  or  any  public  man 
of  standing  in  New  England,  put  forth  such 
a  doctrine  as  this  Carolina  doctrine. 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he  can 
find  none,  to  support  his  own  opinions  by 
New  England  authority.  New  England  has 
studied  the  Constitution  in  other  schools,  and 
under  other  teachers.  She  looks  upon  it  with 
other  regards,  and  deems  more  highly  and  rev 
erently  both  of  its  just  authority  and  its  utility 
and  excellence.  The  history  of  her  legislative 
199 


American 


proceedings  may  be  traced.  The  ephemeral 
effusions  of  temporary  bodies,  called  together 
by  the  excitement  of  the  occasion,  may  be 
hunted  up;  they  have  been  hunted  up.  The 
opinions  and  votes  of  her  public  men,  in  and 
out  of  Congress,  may  be  explored.  It  will 
be  all  in  vain.  The  Carolina  doctrine  can 
derive  from  her  neither  countenance  nor  sup 
port.  She  rejects  it  now;  she  always  did 
reject  it;  and  till  she  loses  her  senses,  she 
always  will  reject  it.  The  honorable  member 
has  referred  to  expressions  on  the  subject  of 
the  embargo  law,  made  in  this  place,  by  an 
honorable  and  venerable  gentleman,  now  fa 
voring  us  with  his  presence.  He  quotes  that 
distinguished  senator  as  saying,  that  in  his 
judgment,  the  embargo  law  was  unconstitu 
tional,  and  that,  therefore,  in  his  opinion,  the 
people  were  not  bound  to  obey  it.  That,  sir, 
is  perfectly  constitutional  language.  An  un 
constitutional  law  is  not  binding;  but  then  it 
does  not  rest  with  a  resolution  or  a  law  of  a 
state  legislature  to  decide  whether  an  act  of 
Congress  be  or  be  not  constitutional.  An  un 
constitutional  act  of  Congress  would  not  bind 
the  people  of  this  district,  although  they  have 
no  legislature  to  interfere  in  their  behalf;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  a  constitutional  law  of 
Congress  does  bind  the  citizens  of  every  state, 
although  all  their  legislatures  should  under 
take  to  annul  it  by  act  or  resolution.  The 
venerable  Connecticut  senator  is  a  constitu- 
200 


SDaniel 


tional  lawyer,  of  sound  principles  and  enlarged 
knowledge;  a  statesman  practiced  and  experi 
enced,  bred  in  the  company  of  Washington, 
and  holding  just  views  upon  the  nature  of  our 
governments.  He  believed  the  embargo  un 
constitutional,  and  so  did  others;  but  what 
then?  Who  did  he  suppose  was  to  decide 
that  question  ?  The  state  legislatures  ?  Cer 
tainly  not.  No  such  sentiment  ever  escaped 
his  lips. 

Let  us  follow  up,  sir,  this  New  England 
opposition  to  the  embargo  laws;  let  us  trace  it 
till  we  discern  the  principle  which  controlled 
and  governed  New  England  throughout  the 
whole  course  of  that  opposition.  We  shall 
then  see  what  similarity  there  is  between  the 
New  England  school  of  constitutional  opin 
ions,  and  this  modern  Carolina  school.  The 
gentleman,  I  think,  read  a  petition  from  some 
single  individual  addressed  to  the  legislature  of 
Massachusetts,  asserting  the  Carolina  doctrine; 
that  is,  the  right  of  state  interference  to  ar 
rest  the  laws  of  the  Union.  The  fate  of  that 
petition  shows  the  sentiment  of  the  legislature. 
It  met  no  favor.  The  opinions  of  Massachu 
setts  were  very  different.  They  had  been  ex 
pressed  in  1798,  in  answer  to  the  resolutions 
of  Virginia,  and  she  did  not  depart  from  them, 
nor  bend  them  to  the  times.  Misgoverned, 
wronged,  oppressed,  as  she  felt  herself  to  be, 
she  still  held  fast  her  integrity  to  the  Union. 
The  gentleman  may  find  in  her  proceedings 
201 


American 


much  evidence  of  dissatisfaction  with  the 
measures  of  government,  and  great  and  deep 
dislike  to  the  embargo;  all  this  makes  the  case 
so  much  the  stronger  for  her;  for  notwith 
standing  all  this  dissatisfaction  and  dislike,  she 
still  claimed  no  right  to  sever  the  bonds  of 
the  Union.  There  was  heat  and  there  was 
anger  in  her  political  feeling.  Be  it  so;  but 
neither  her  heat  nor  her  anger  betrayed  her 
into  infidelity  to  the  government.  The  gentle 
man  labors  to  prove  that  she  disliked  the  em 
bargo  as  much  as  South  Carolina  dislikes  the 
tariff,  and  expressed  her  dislike  as  strongly. 
Be  it  so;  but  did  she  propose  the  Carolina 
remedy  ?  Did  she  threaten  to  interfere,  by 
state  authority,  to  annul  the  laws  of  the 
Union  ?  That  is  the  question  for  the  gentle 
man's  consideration. 

No  doubt,  sir,  a  great  majority  of  the  peo 
ple  of  New  England  conscientiously  believed 
the  embargo  law  of  1807  unconstitutional; 
as  conscientiously,  certainly,  as  the  people  of 
South  Carolina  hold  that  opinion  of  the  tariff. 
They  reasoned  thus:  Congress  has  power  to 
regulate  commerce;  but  here  is  a  law,  they 
said,  stopping  all  commerce,  and  stopping  it 
indefinitely.  The  law  is  perpetual;  that  is,  it 
is  not  limited  in  point  of  time,  and  must  of 
course  continue  until  it  shall  be  repealed  by 
some  other  law.  It  is  as  perpetual,  therefore, 
as  the  law  against  treason  or  murder.  Now, 
is  this  regulating  commerce,  or  destroying-  it  ? 
202 


SDaniel 


Is  it  guiding,  controlling,  giving  the  rule  to 
commerce,  as  a  subsisting  thing,  or  is  it  put 
ting  an  end  to  it  altogether  ?  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  that  a  majority  in  New  England 
deemed  this  law  a  violation  of  the  Constitution. 
The  very  case  required  by  the  gentleman  to 
justify  state  interference  had  then  arisen. 
Massachusetts  believed  this  law  to  be  "a  delib 
erate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  a 
power  not  granted  by  the  Constitution."  De 
liberate  it  was,  for  it  was  long  continued;  pal 
pable  she  thought  it,  as  no  words  in  the  Consti 
tution  gave  the  power,  and  only  a  construction, 
in  her  opinion  most  violent,  raised  it;  dan 
gerous  it  was,  since  it  threatened  utter  ruin  to 
her  most  important  interests.  Here,  then,  was 
a  Carolina  case.  How  did  Massachusetts 
deal  with  it  ?  It  was,  as  she  thought,  a  plain, 
manifest,  palpable  violation  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  it  brought  ruin  to  her  doors.  Thou 
sands  of  families,  and  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  individuals,  were  beggared  by  it.  While 
she  saw  and  felt  all  this,  she  saw  and  felt  also, 
that,  as  a  measure  of  national  policy,  it  was 
perfectly  futile;  that  the  country  was  in  no 
way  benefited  by  that  which  caused  so  much 
individual  distress;  that  it  was  efficient  only 
for  the  production  of  evil,  and  all  that  evil 
inflicted  on  ourselves.  In  such  a  case,  under 
such  circumstances,  how  did  Massachusetts 
demean  herself?  Sir,  she  remonstrated,  she 
memorialized,  she  addressed  herself  to  the 
203 


3tmertcan 


general  government,  not  exactly  "with  the 
concentrated  energy  of  passion,"  but  with  her 
own  strong  sense,  and  the  energy  of  sober 
conviction.  But  she  did  not  interpose  the 
arm  of  her  own  power  to  arrest  the  law  and 
break  the  embargo.  Far  from  it.  Her  prin 
ciples  bound  her  to  two  things;  and  she  fol 
lowed  her  principles,  lead  where  they  might. 
First,  to  submit  to  every  constitutional  law  of 
Congress;  and  secondly,  if  the  constitutional 
validity  of  the  law  be  doubted,  to  refer  that 
question  to  the  decision  of  the  proper  tribu 
nals.  The  first  principle  is  vain  and  ineffec 
tual  without  the  second.  A  majority  of  us  in 
New  England  believed  the  embargo  law  un 
constitutional;  but  the  great  question  was, 
and  always  will  be  in  such  cases,  Who  is  to 
decide  this  ?  Who  is  to  judge  between  the 
people  and  the  government  ?  And,  sir,  it  is 
quite  plain  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  confers  on  the  government  itself,  to  be 
exercised  by  its  appropriate  department,  and 
under  its  own  responsibility  to  the  people,  this 
power  of  deciding  ultimately  and  conclusively 
upon  the  just  extent  of  its  own  authority.  If 
this  had  not  been  done,  we  should  not  have 
advanced  a  single  step  beyond  the  old  Confed 
eration. 

Being  fully  of  the  opinion  that  the  embargo 

law  was  unconstitutional,  the  people  of  New 

England  were  yet  equally  clear  in  the  opinion 

(it  was  a  matter  they  did  doubt  upon)  that  the 

204 


SDaniel 


question,  after  all,  must  be  decided  by  the  ju 
dicial  tribunals  of  the  United  States.  Before 
those  tribunals,  therefore,  they  brought  the 
question.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  law, 
they  had  given  bonds  to  millions  in  amount,  and 
which  were  alleged  to  be  forfeited.  They  suf 
fered  the  bonds  to  be  sued,  and  thus  raised 
the  question.  In  the  old-fashioned  way  of 
settling  disputes,  they  went  to  law.  The  case 
came  to  hearing  and  solemn  argument;  and 
he  who  espoused  their  cause,  and  stood  up  for 
them  against  the  validity  of  the  embargo  act, 
was  none  other  than  that  great  man  of  whom 
the  gentleman  has  made  honorable  mention, 
Samuel  Dexter.  He  was  then,  sir,  in  the  full 
ness  of  his  knowledge  and  the  maturity  of  his 
strength.  He  had  retired  from  long  and  dis 
tinguished  public  service  here,  to  the  renewed 
pursuit  of  professional  duties,  carrying  with 
him  all  that  enlargement  and  expansion,  all  the 
new  strength  and  force,  which  an  acquaintance 
with  the  more  general  subjects  discussed  in 
the  national  councils  is  capable  of  adding  to 
professional  attainment,  in  a  mind  of  true  great 
ness  and  comprehension.  He  was  a  lawyer, 
and  he  was  also  a  statesman.  He  had  studied 
the  Constitution  when  he  filled  public  station 
that  he  might  defend  it;  he  had  examined  its 
principles  that  he  might  maintain  them.  More 
than  all  men,  or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man, 
he  was  attached  to  the  general  government 
and  to  the  union  of  the  states.  His  feelings 
205 


American 


and  opinions  all  ran  in  that  direction.  A  ques 
tion  of  constitutional  law,  too,  was,  of  all  sub 
jects,  that  one  which  was  best  suited  to  his 
talents  and  learning.  Aloof  from  technicality, 
and  unfettered  by  artificial  rule,  such  a  ques 
tion  gave  opportunity  for  that  deep  and  clear 
analysis,  that  mighty  grasp  of  principle,  which 
so  much  distinguished  his  higher  efforts.  His 
very  statement  was  argument;  his  inference 
seemed  demonstration.  The  earnestness  of  his 
own  conviction  wrought  conviction  in  others. 
One  was  convinced,  and  believed,  and  assented, 
because  it  was  gratifying,  delightful  to  think 
and  feel  and  believe  in  unison  with  an  intellect 
of  such  evident  superiority. 

Mr.  Dexter,  sir,  such  as  I  have  described 
him,  argued  the  New  England  cause.  He  put 
into  his  effort  his  whole  heart  as  well  as  all 
the  powers  of  his  understanding;  for  he  had 
avowed,  in  the  most  public  manner,  his  entire 
concurrence  with  his  neighbors  on  the  point 
in  dispute.  He  argued  the  cause;  it  was  lost, 
and  New  England  submitted.  The  established 
tribunals  pronounced  the  law  constitutional, 
and  New  England  acquiesced.  Now,  sir,  is 
not  this  the  exact  opposite  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina?  Accord 
ing  to  him,  instead  of  referring  to  the  judicial 
tribunals,  we  should  have  broken  up  the  em 
bargo  by  laws  of  our  own;  we  should  have  re 
pealed  it,  quoad  New  England;  for  we  had  a 
strong,  palpable,  and  oppressive  case.  Sir,  we 
206 


2DanieI 


believed  the  embargo  unconstitutional;  but  still 
that  was  matter  of  opinion,  and  who  was  to  de 
cide  it  ?  We  thought  it  a  clear  case ;  but,  never 
theless,  we  did  not  take  the  law  into  our  own 
hands,  because  we  did  not  wish  to  bring  about 
a  revolution,  nor  to  break  up  the  Union;  for  I 
maintain,  that  between  submission  to  the  deci 
sion  of  the  constituted  tribunals,  and  revolution 
or  disunion,  there  is  no  middle  ground;  there  is 
no  ambiguous  condition,  half  allegiance  and  half 
rebellion.  And,  sir,  how  futile,  how  very  futile 
it  is,  to  admit  the  right  of  state  interference, 
and  then  attempt  to  save  it  from  the  character 
of  unlawful  resistance,  by  adding  terms  of  qual 
ification  to  the  causes  and  occasions,  leaving 
all  these  qualifications,  like  the  case  itself,  in 
the  discretion  of  the  state  governments.  It 
must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is  said,  a  deliberate 
case,  a  palpable  case,  a  dangerous  case.  But 
then  the  state  is  still  left  at  liberty  to  decide 
for  herself  what  is  clear,  what  is  deliberate, 
what  is  palpable,  what  is  dangerous.  Do 
adjectives  and  epithets  avail  anything? 

Sir,  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted  that  the 
merits  of  both  sides  of  a  controversy  appear 
very  clear  and  very  palpable  to  those  who 
respectively  espouse  them;  and  both  sides  usu 
ally  grow  clearer  as  the  controversy  advances. 
South  Carolina  sees  unconstitutionality  in  the 
tariff;  she  sees  oppression  there  also,  and  she 
sees  danger.  Pennsylvania,  with  a  vision  not 
less  sharp,  looks  at  the  same  tariff,  and  sees 
207 


American 


no  such  thing  in  it;  she  sees  it  all  constitu 
tional,  all  useful,  all  safe.  The  faith  of  South 
Carolina  is  strengthened  by  opposition,  and  she 
now  not  only  sees  but  resolves  that  the  tariff 
is  palpably  unconstitutional,  oppressive,  and 
dangerous;  but  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  behind 
her  neighbors,  and  equally  willing  to  strengthen 
her  own  faith  by  a  confident  asseveration, 
resolves,  also,  and  gives  to  every  warm  affirm 
ative  of  South  Carolina,  a  plain,  downright, 
Pennsylvania  negative.  South  Carolina,  to 
show  the  strength  and  unity  of  her  opinion, 
brings  her  assembly  to  a  unanimity,  within 
seven  voices;  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  outdone 
in  this  respect  any  more  than  in  others,  reduces 
her  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote.  Now, 
sir,  again,  I  ask  the  gentleman,  what  is  to  be 
done?  Are  these  states  both  right?  Is  he 
bound  to  consider  them  both  right  ?  If  not, 
which  is  in  the  wrong  ?  Or  rather,  which  has 
the  best  right  to  decide  ?  And  if  he,  and  if  I, 
are  not  to  know  what  the  Constitution  means, 
and  what  it  is,  till  those  two  state  legislatures, 
and  the  twenty-two  others,  shall  agree  in  its 
construction,  what  have  we  sworn  to  when  we 
have  sworn  to  maintain  it?  I  was  forcibly 
struck,  sir,  with  one  reflection,  as  the  gentle 
man  went  on  in  his  speech.  He  quoted  Mr. 
Madison's  resolutions  to  prove  that  a  state 
may  interfere,  in  a  case  of  deliberate,  palpable, 
and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted. 
The  honorable  member  supposes  the  tariff  law 
208 


Daniel 


to  be  such  an  exercise  of  power;  and  that 
consequently  a  case  has  arisen  in  which  the 
state  may,  if  it  see  fit,  interfere  by  its  own  law. 
Now  it  so  happens,  nevertheless,  that  Mr. 
Madison  deems  this  same  tariff  law  quite  con 
stitutional.  Instead  of  a  clear  and  palpable 
violation,  it  is,  in  his  judgment,  no  violation  at 
all.  So  that,  while  they  use  his  authority  for 
a  hypothetical  case,  they  reject  it  in  the  very 
case  before  them.  All  this,  sir,  shows  the  in 
herent  futility — I  had  almost  used  a  stronger 
word —  of  conceding  this  power  of  interference 
to  the  state,  and  then  attempting  to  secure  it 
from  abuse  by  imposing  qualifications  of  which 
the  states  themselves  are  to  judge.  One  of 
the  two  things  is  true:  either  the  laws  of 
the  Union  are  beyond  the  discretion  and  be 
yond  the  control  of  the  states,  or  else  we 
have  no  constitution  of  general  government, 
and  are  thrust  back  again  to  the  days  of  the 
Confederation. 

Let  me  here  say,  sir,  that  if  the  gentleman's 
doctrine  had  been  received  and  acted  upon  in 
New  England,  in  the  times  of  the  embargo 
and  non-intercourse,  we  should  probably  not 
now  have  been  here.  The  government  would 
very  likely  have  gone  to  pieces,  and  crumbled 
into  dust.  No  stronger  case  can  ever  arise 
than  existed  under  those  laws;  no  states  can 
ever  entertain  a  clearer  conviction  than  the 
New  England  states  then  entertained;  and 
if  they  had  been  under  the  influence  of  that 
209 


American 


heresy  of  opinion,  as  I  must  call  it,  which  the 
honorable  member  espouses,  this  Union  would 
in  all  probability  have  been  scattered  to  the 
four  winds.  I  ask  the  gentleman,  therefore, 
to  apply  his  principles  to  that  case;  I  ask  him 
to  come  forth  and  declare,  whether,  in  his 
opinion,  the  New  England  states  would  have 
been  justified  in  interfering  to  break  up  the 
embargo  system  under  the  conscientious  opin 
ions  which  they  held  upon  it.  Had  they 
a  right  to  annul  that  law?  Does  he  admit  or 
deny  ?  If  what  is  thought  palpably  unconsti 
tutional  in  South  Carolina  justifies  that  state 
in  arresting  the  progress  of  the  law,  tell  me 
whether  that  which  was  thought  palpably 
unconstitutional  also  in  Massachusetts  would 
have  justified  her  in  doing  the  same  thing? 
Sir,  I  deny  the  whole  doctrine.  It  has  not  a 
foot  of  ground  in  the  Constitution  to  stand  on. 
No  public  man  of  reputation  ever  advanced  it 
in  Massachusetts  in  the  warmest  times,  or 
could  maintain  himself  upon  it  there  at  any 
time. 

I  wish  now,  sir,  to  make  a  remark  upon  the 
Virginia  resolutions  of  1798.  I  cannot  under 
take  to  say  how  these  resolutions  were  under 
stood  by  those  who  passed  them.  Their 
language  is  not  a  little  indefinite.  In  the  case 
of  the  exercise  by  Congress  of  a  dangerous 
power  not  granted  to  them,  the  resolutions 
assert  the  right  on  the  part  of  the  state  to 
interfere  and  arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil. 
210 


SDaniel 


This  is  susceptible  of  more  than  one  interpre 
tation.  It  may  mean  no  more  than  that  the 
states  may  interfere  by  complaint  and  re 
monstrance,  or  by  proposing  to  the  people  an 
alteration  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  This 
would  all  be  quite  unobjectionable.  Or  it 
may  be  that  no  more  is  meant  than  to  assert 
the  general  right  of  revolution,  as  against  all 
governments,  in  cases  of  intolerable  oppres 
sion.  This  no  one  doubts,  and  this,  in  my 
opinion,  is  all  that  he  who  framed  the  reso 
lutions  could  have  meant  by  it;  for  I  shall  not 
readily  believe  that  he  was  ever  of  opinion 
that  a  state,  under  the  Constitution  and  in 
conformity  with  it,  could,  upon  the  ground 
of  her  own  opinion  of  its  unconstitutionality, 
however  clear  and  palpable  she  might  think 
the  case,  annul  a  law  of  Congress,  so  far  as  it 
should  operate  on  herself,  by  her  own  legis 
lative  power. 

I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  sir,  whence  is  this 
supposed  right  of  the  states  derived  ?  Where 
do  they  find  the  power  to  interfere  with  the 
laws  of  the  Union?  Sir,  the  opinion  which 
the  honorable  gentleman  maintains  is  a  notion 
founded  in  a  tqtal  misapprehension,  in  my 
judgment,  of  the  origin  of  this  government, 
and  of  the  foundation  on  which  it  stands.  I 
hold  it  to  be  a  popular  government  erected  by 
the  people;  those  who  administer  it  responsible 
to  the  people;  and  itself  capable  of  being 
amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  people  may 

211 


American 


choose  it  should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as 
truly  emanating  from  the  people,  as  the  state 
governments.  It  is  created  for  one  purpose  ; 
the  state  governments  for  another.  It  has 
its  own  powers;  they  have  theirs.  There  is 
no  more  authority  with  them  to  arrest  the 
operation  of  a  law  of  Congress,  than  with 
Congress  to  arrest  the  operation  of  their 
laws.  We  are  here  to  administer  a  Constitu 
tion  emanating  immediately  from  the  people, 
and  trusted  by  them  to  our  administration. 
It  is  not  the  creature  of  the  state  govern 
ments.  It  is  of  no  moment  to  the  argument, 
that  certain  acts  of  the  state  legislatures  are 
necessary  to  fill  our  seats  in  this  body.  That 
is  not  one  of  their  original  state  powers,  a 
part  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  state.  It  is  a 
duty  which  the  people,  by  the  Constitution 
itself,  have  imposed  on  the  state  legislatures; 
and  which  they  might  have  left  to  be  per 
formed  elsewhere,  if  they  had  seen  fit.  So 
they  have  left  the  choice  of  President  with 
electors;  but  all  this  does  not  affect  the  propo 
sition  that  this  whole  government,  President, 
Senate,  and  House  of  Representatives,  is  a 
popular  government.  It  leaves  it  still  all  its 
popular  character.  The  governor  of  a  state 
(in  some  of  the  states)  is  chosen,  not  directly 
by  the  people,  but  by  those  who  are  chosen 
by  the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  performing, 
among  other  duties,  that  of  electing  a  gov 
ernor.  Is  the  government  of  the  state,  on  that 

212 


SDaniel 


account,  not  a  popular  government?  This 
government,  sir,  is  the  independent  offspring 
of  the  popular  will.  It  is  not  the  creature  of 
state  legislatures;  nay,  more,  if  the  whole 
truth  must  be  told,  the  people  brought  it  into 
existence,  established  it,  and  have  hitherto 
supported  it,  for  the  very  purpose,  amongst 
others,  of  imposing  certain  salutary  restraints 
on  state  sovereignties.  The  states  cannot 
now  make  war;  they  cannot  contract  alliances; 
they  cannot  make,  each  for  itself,  separate 
regulations  of  commerce;  they  cannot  lay 
imposts;  they  cannot  coin  money.  If  this 
Constitution,  sir,  be  the  creature  of  state 
legislatures,  it  must  Bbe  admitted  that  it  has 
obtained  a  strange  control  over  the  volitions 
of  its  creators. 

The  people,  then,  sir,  erected  this  govern 
ment.  They  gave  it  a  constitution,  and  in 
that  constitution  they  have  enumerated  the 
powers  which  they  bestow  on  it.  They  have 
made  it  a  limited  government.  They  have 
defined  its  authority.  They  have  restrained 
it  to  the  exercise  of  such  powers  as  are 
granted;  and  all  others,  they  declare,  are  re 
served  to  the  states  or  the  people.  But,  sir, 
they  have  not  stopped  here.  If  they  had, 
they  would  have  accomplished  but  half  their 
work.  No  definition  can  be  so  clear  as  to 
avoid  possibility  of  doubt;  no  limitation  so 
precise  as  to  exclude  all  uncertainty.  Who, 
then,  shall  construe  this  grant  of  the  people? 
213 


American 


Who  shall  interpret  their  will,  where  it  may  be 
supposed  they  have  left  it  doubtful?  With 
whom  do  they  repose  this  ultimate  right  of 
deciding  on  the  powers  of  the  government  ? 
Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this  in  the  fullest 
manner.  They  have  left  it  with  the  govern 
ment  itself,  in  its  appropriate  branches.  Sir, 
the  very  chief  end,  the  main  design,  for 
which  the  whole  Constitution  was  framed  and 
adopted,  was  to  establish  a  government  that 
should  not  be  obliged  to  act  through  state 
agency,  or  depend  on  state  opinion  and  state 
discretion.  The  people  had  had  quite  enough 
of  that  kind  of  government  under  the  Con 
federation.  Under  that  system,  the  legal 
action,  the  application  of  law  to  individuals, 
belonged  exclusively  to  the  states.  Congress 
could  only  recommend;  their  acts  were  not  of 
binding  force  till  the  states  had  adopted  and 
sanctioned  them.  Are  we  in  that  condition 
still?  Are  we  yet  at  the  mercy  of  state  dis 
cretion  and  state  construction  ?  Sir,  if  we 
are,  then  vain  will  be  our  attempt  to  maintain 
the  Constitution  under  which  we  sit. 

But,  sir,  the  people  have  wisely  provided, 
in  the  Constitution  itself,  a  proper,  suitable 
mode  and  tribunal  for  settling  questions  of  con 
stitutional  law.  There  are  in  the  Constitution 
grants  of  powers  to  Congress,  and  restrictions 
on  these  powers.  There  are,  also,  prohibitions 
on  the  states.  Some  authority  must,  therefore, 
necessarily  exist,  having  the  ultimate  jurisdic- 
214 


2DanieI 


tion  to  fix  and  ascertain  the  interpretation 
of  these  grants,  restrictions,  and  prohibitions. 
The  Constitution  has  itself  pointed  out,  or 
dained,  and  established  that  authority.  How 
has  it  accomplished  this  great  and  essential 
end  ?  By  declaring,  sir,  that  "the  Constitution, 
and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  made  in 
pursuance  thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land,  anything  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of 
any  state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding ." 

This,  sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this 
the  supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States  is  declared.  The  people  so 
will  it.  No  state  law  is  to  be  valid  which 
comes  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution,  or  any 
law  of  the  United  States  passed  in  pursuance 
of  it.  But  who  shall  decide  this  question  of 
interference?  To, whom  lies  the  last  appeal? 
This,  sir,  the  Constitution  itself  decides  also, 
by  declaring  "that  the  judicial  power  shall  ex 
tend  to  all  cases  arising  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States."  These  two 
provisions  cover  the  whole  ground.  They 
are,  in  truth,  the  keystone  of  the  arch !  With 
these  it  is  a  government;  without  them  it  is  a 
confederation.  In  pursuance  of  these  clear 
and  express  provisions,  Congress  established, 
at  its  very  first  session,  in  the  judicial  act,  a 
mode  for  carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and 
for  bringing  all  questions  of  constitutional 
power  to  the  final  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  It  then,  sir,  became  a  government. 
215 


jftemorafcle  American 


It  then  had  the  means  of  self-protection; 
and  but  for  this,  it  would,  in  all  probability, 
have  been  now  among  things  which  are  past. 
Having  constituted  the  government,  and  de 
clared  its  powers,  the  people  have  further 
said,  that,  since  somebody  must  decide  on  the 
extent  of  these  powers,  the  government  shall 
itself  decide;  subject,  always,  like  other  popu 
lar  governments,  to  its  responsibility  to  the 
people.  And  now,  sir,  I  repeat,  how  is  it 
that  a  state  legislature  acquires  any  power  to 
interfere?  Who,  or  what,  gives  them  the 
right  to  say  to  the  people,  "We,  who  are 
your  agents  and  servants  for  one  purpose,  will 
undertake  to  decide  that  your  other  agents 
and  servants,  appointed  by  you  for  another 
purpose,  have  transcended  the  authority  you 
gave  them?"  The  reply  would  be,  I  think, 
not  impertinent:  "Who  made  you  a  judge 
over  another's  servants  ?  To  their  own  master 
they  stand  or  fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  state  legislatures 
altogether.  It  cannot  stand  the  test  of  exam 
ination.  Gentlemen  may  say  that  in  an  ex 
treme  case  a  state  government  might  protect 
the  people  from  intolerable  oppression.  Sir, 
in  such  a  case  the  people  might  protect  them 
selves  without  the  aid  of  the  state  govern 
ments.  Such  a  case  warrants  revolution.  It 
must  make,  when  it  comes,  a  law  for  itself. 
A  nullifying  act  of  a  state  legislature  cannot 
alter  the  case,  nor  make  resistance  any  more 
216 


SDaniel 


lawful.  In  maintaining  these  sentiments,  sir, 
I  am  but  asserting  the  rights  of  the  people.  I 
state  what  they  have  declared,  and  insist  on 
their  right  to  declare  it.  They  have  chosen 
to  repose  this  power  in  the  general  govern 
ment,  and  I  think  it  my  duty  to  support  it, 
like  other  constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  compe 
tency  of  South  Carolina,  or  any  other  state,  to 
prescribe  my  constitutional  duty;  or  to  settle, 
between  me  and  the  people,  the  validity  of 
laws  of  Congress  for  which  I  have  voted.  I 
decline  her  umpirage.  I  have  not  sworn  to 
support  the  Constitution  according  to  her  con 
struction  of  its  clauses.  I  have  not  stipulated, 
by  my  oath  of  office  or  otherwise,  to  come 
under  any  responsibility,  except  to  the  people, 
and  those  whom  they  have  appointed  to  pass 
upon  the  question,  whether  laws,  supported  by 
my  votes,  conform  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
country.  And,  sir,  if  we  look  to  the  general 
nature  of  the  case,  could  anything  have  been 
more  preposterous  than  to  make  a  government 
for  the  whole  Union,  and  yet  leave  its  powers 
subject,  not  to  one  interpretation,  but  to  thir 
teen  or  twenty- four  interpretations?  Instead 
of  one  tribunal,  established  by  all,  responsible 
to  all,  with  power  to  decide  for  all,  shall  con 
stitutional  questions  be  left  to  four-and-twen- 
ty  popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for 
itself,  and  none  bound  to  respect  the  decisions 
of  others, — and  each  at  liberty,  too,  to  give  a 
217 


American 


new  construction  on  every  new  election  of  its 
own  members  ?  Would  anything,  with  such  a 
principle  in  it,  or  rather  with  such  a  destitution 
of  all  principle,  be  fit  to  be  called  a  govern 
ment  ?  No,  sir.  It  should  not  be  denominat 
ed  a  Constitution.  It  should  be  called,  rather, 
a  collection  of  topics  for  everlasting  con 
troversy;  heads  of  debate  for  a  disputatious 
people.  It  would  not  be  a  government.  It 
would  not  be  adequate  to  any  practical  good, 
or  fit  for  any  country  to  live  under. 

To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being  misunder 
stood,  allow  me  to  repeat  again,  in  the  fullest 
manner,  that  I  claim  no  powers  for  the  gov 
ernment  by  forced  or  unfair  construction.  I 
admit  that  it  is  a  government  of  strictly  limited 
powers  ;  of  enumerated,  specified,  and  partic 
ularized  powers  ;  and  that  whatsoever  is  not 
granted  is  withheld.  But  notwithstanding  all 
this,  and  however  the  grant  of  powers  may  be 
expressed,  its  limit  and  extent  may  yet,  in 
some  cases,  admit  of  doubt  ;  and  the  general 
government  would  be  good  for  nothing,  it 
would  be  incapable  of  long  existing,  if  some 
mode  had  not  been  provided  in  which  those 
doubts,  as  they  should  arise,  might  be  peace 
ably  but  authoritatively  solved. 

And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the 
honorable  gentleman's  doctrine  a  little  into  its 
practical  application.  Let  us  look  at  his  prob 
able  modus  operandi.  If  a  thing  can  be  done, 
an  ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it  is  to  be  done, 
218 


SDaniel 


and  I  wish  to  be  informed  how  this  state  inter 
ference  is  to  be  put  in  practice,  without  vio 
lence,  bloodshed,  and  rebellion.  We  will  take 
the  existing  case  of  the  tariff  law.  South 
Carolina  is  said  to  have  made  up  her  opinion 
upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it  (as  we  prob 
ably  shall  not),  she  will  then  apply  to  the  case 
the  remedy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we 
must  suppose,  pass  a  law  of  her  legislature, 
declaring  the  several  acts  of  Congress,  usually 
called  the  tariff  laws,  null  and  void,  so  far  as 
they  respect  South  Carolina  or  the  citizens 
thereof.  So  far,  all  is  a  paper  transaction,  and 
easy  enough.  But  the  collector  at  Charleston 
is  collecting  the  duties  imposed  by  these 
tariff  laws.  He,  therefore,  must  be  stopped. 
The  collector  will  seize  the  goods  if  the  tariff 
duties  are  not  paid.  The  state  authorities 
will  undertake  their  rescue,  the  marshal,  with 
his  posse,  will  come  to  the  collector's  aid,  and 
here  the  contest  begins.  The  militia  of  the 
state  will  be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nullify 
ing  act.  They  will  march,  sir,  under  a  very 
gallant  leader;  for  I  believe  the  honorable 
member  himself  commands  the  militia  of  that 
part  of  the  state.  He  will  raise  the  Nulli 
fying  Act  on  his  standard,  and  spread  it 
out  as  his  banner !  It  will  have  a  preamble, 
setting  forth  that  the  tariff  laws  are  palpable, 
deliberate,  and  dangerous  violations  of  the 
Constitution!  He  will  proceed,  with  this  ban 
ner  flying,  to  the  custom-house  in  Charleston, 
219 


jftemorafile  American 


"All  the  while 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds." 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the 
collector  that  he  must  collect  no  more  duties 
under  any  of  the  tariff  laws.  This  he  will 
be  somewhat  puzzled  to  say,  by  the  way,  with 
a  grave  countenance,  considering  what  hand 
South  Carolina  herself  had  in  that  of  1816. 
But,  sir,  the  collector  would  not,  probably, 
desist  at  his  bidding.  He  would  show  him  the 
law  of  Congress,  the  treasury  instruction,  and 
his  own  oath  of  office.  He  would  say  he 
should  perform  his  duty,  come  what  come 
might. 

Here  would  ensue  a  pause,  for  they  say 
that  a  certain  stillness  precedes  the  tempest. 
The  trumpeter  would  hold  his  breath  a  while, 
and  before  all  this  military  array  should  fall 
on  the  custom-house  —  collector,  clerks,  and  all 
—  it  is  very  probable  some  of  those  composing 
it  would  request  of  their  gallant  commander- 
in-chief  to  be  informed  a  little  upon  the  point 
of  law;  for  they  have,  doubtless,  a  just  respect 
for  his  opinions  as  a  lawyer,  as  well  as  for  his 
bravery  as  a  soldier.  They  know  he  has  read 
Blackstone  and  the  Constitution,  as  well  as 
Turenne  and  Vauban.  They  would  ask  him, 
therefore,  something  concerning  their  rights 
in  this  matter.  They  would  inquire  whether 
it  was  not  somewhat  dangerous  to  resist  a  law 
of  the  United  States.  What  would  be  the 
nature  of  their  offence,  they  would  wish  to 
220 


SDaniel 


learn,  if  they,  by  military  force  and  array, 
resisted  the  execution  in  Carolina  of  a  law  of 
the  United  States,  and  it  should  turn  out,  after 
all,  that  the  law  was  constitutional  ?  He  would 
answer,  of  course,  Treason.  No  lawyer  could 
give  any  other  answer.  John  Fries,  he  would 
tell  them,  had  learned  that  some  years  ago. 
How,  then,  they  would  ask,  do  you  propose  to 
defend  us  ?  We  are  not  afraid  of  bullets,  but 
treason  has  a  way  of  taking  people  off  that 
we  do  not  much  relish.  How  do  you  propose 
to  defend  us  ?  "  Look  at  my  floating  banner," 
he  would  reply;  "see  there  the  nullifying 
law!"  Is  it  your  opinion,  gallant  commander, 
they  would  then  say,  that,  if  we  should  be  in 
dicted  for  treason,  that  same  floating  banner 
of  yours  would  make  a  good  plea  in  bar? 
"  South  Carolina  is  a  sovereign  state,"  he  would 
reply.  That  is  true;  but  would  the  judge 
admit  our  plea  ?  "  These  tariff  laws,"  he  would 
repeat,  "are  unconstitutional,  palpably,  delib 
erately,  dangerously."  That  may  all  be  so; 
but  if  the  tribunal  should  not  happen  to  be  of 
that  opinion,  shall  we  swing  for  it  ?  We  are 
ready  to  die  for  our  country,  but  it  is  rather 
an  awkward  business,  this  dying  without  touch 
ing  the  ground  !  After  all,  that  is  a  sort  of 
hemp  tax  worse  than  any  part  of  the  tariff. 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentleman 
would  be  in  a  dilemma  like  that  of  another 
great  general.  He  would  have  a  knot  before 
him  which  he  could  not  untie.  He  must  cut  it 

221 


American 


with  his  sword.  He  must  say  to  his  followers, 
"Defend  yourselves  with  your  bayonets"; 
and  this  is  war,  —  civil  war. 

Direct  collision,  therefore,  between  force 
and  force  is  the  unavoidable  result  of  that 
remedy  for  the  revision  of  unconstitutional 
laws  which  the  gentleman  contends  for.  It 
must  happen  in  the  very  first  case  to  which  it 
is  applied.  Is  not  this  the  plain  result  ?  To 
resist  by  force  the  execution  of  a  law,  gener 
ally,  is  treason.  Can  the  courts  of  the  United 
States  take  notice  of  the  indulgence  of  a  state 
to  commit  treason  ?  The  common  saying  that 
a  state  cannot  commit  treason  herself  is  noth 
ing  to  the  purpose.  Can  she  authorize  others 
to  do  it  ?  If  John  Fries  had  produced  an  act 
of  Pennsylvania,  annulling  the  law  of  Congress, 
would  it  have  helped  his  case  ?  Talk  about  it 
as  we  will,  these  doctrines  go  the  length  of 
revolution.  They  are  incompatible  with  any 
peaceable  administration  of  the  government. 
They  lead  directly  to  disunion  and  civil  com 
motion;  and  therefore  it  is,  that  at  their  com 
mencement,  when  they  are  first  found  to  be 
maintained  by  respectable  men,  and  in  a  tan 
gible  form,  I  enter  my  public  protest  against 
them  all. 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues,  that,  if 
this  government  be  the  sole  judge  of  the  extent 
of  its  own  powers,  whether  that  right  of  judg 
ing  be  in  Congress  or  the  Supreme  Court,  it 
equally  subverts  state  sovereignty.  This  the 
222 


SDaniel 


gentleman  sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  although  he 
cannot  perceive  how  the  right  of  judging,  in 
this  matter,  if  left  to  the  exercise  of  state 
legislatures,  has  any  tendency  to  subvert  the 
government  of  the  Union.  The  gentleman's 
opinion  may  be  that  the  right  ought  not  to 
have  been  lodged  with  the  general  govern 
ment;  he  may  like  better  such  a  constitution 
as  we  should  have  under  the  right  of  state 
interference;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet  me  on 
the  plain  matter  of  fact.  I  ask  him  to  meet 
me  on  the  Constitution  itself.  I  ask  him  if 
the  power  is  not  found  there,  clearly  and  visibly 
found  there. 

But,  sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and  what  are 
the  grounds  of  it?  Let  it  be  remembered  that 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  not  un 
alterable.  It  is  to  continue  in  its  present  form 
no  longer  than  the  people  who  established 
it  shall  choose  to  continue  it.  If  they  shall 
become  convinced  that  they  have  made  an 
injudicious  or  inexpedient  partition  and  distri 
bution  of  power  between  the  state  govern 
ments  and  the  general  government,  they  can 
alter  that  distribution  at  will. 

If  anything  be  found  in  the  national  Con 
stitution,  either  by  original  provision  or  sub 
sequent  interpretation,  which  ought  not  to  be  in 
it,  the  people  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  If  any 
construction,  unacceptable  to  them,  be  estab 
lished  so  as  to  become  practically  a  part  of  the 
Constitution,  they  will  amend  it  at  their  own 
223 


American 


sovereign  pleasure.  But  while  the  people 
choose  to  maintain  it  as  it  is,  while  they  are  sat 
isfied  with  it,  and  refuse  to  change  it,  who  has 
given,  or  who  can  give,  to  the  state  legislatures 
a  right  to  alter  it,  either  by  interference,  con 
struction,  or  otherwise?  Gentlemen  do  not 
seem  to  recollect  that  the  people  have  any 
power  to  do  anything  for  themselves.  They 
imagine  there  is  no  safety  for  them  any  longer 
than  they  are  under  the  close  guardianship 
of  the  state  legislatures.  Sir,  the  people 
have  not  trusted  their  safety  in  regard  to  the 
general  Constitution  to  these  hands.  They 
have  required  other  security,  and  taken  other 
bonds.  They  have  chosen  to  trust  themselves, 
first,  to  the  plain  words  of  the  instrument,  and 
to  such  construction  as  the  government  them 
selves,  in  doubtful  cases,  should  put  on  their 
own  powers,  under  their  oaths  of  office,  and 
subject  to  their  responsibility  to  them;  just  as 
the  people  of  a  state  trust  their  own  state 
governments  with  a  similar  power.  Secondly, 
they  have  reposed  their  trust  in  the  efficacy  of 
frequent  elections,  and  in  their  own  power  to 
remove  their  own  servants  and  agents  when 
ever  they  see  cause.  Thirdly,  they  have  re 
posed  trust  in  the  judicial  power,  which,  in 
order  that  it  might  be  trustworthy,  they  have 
made  as  respectable,  as  disinterested,  and  as 
independent  as  was  practicable.  Fourthly, 
they  have  seen  fit  to  rely,  in  case  of  necessity, 
or  high  expediency,  on  their  known  and  admit- 
224 


SDaniei  Wtbgttt 


ted  power  to  alter  or  amend  the  Constitution 
peaceably  and  quietly,  whenever  experience 
shall  point  out  defects  or  imperfections.  And, 
finally,  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  at 
no  time,  in  no  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  au 
thorized  any  state  legislature  to  construe  or 
interpret  their  high  instrument  of  government, 
much  less  to  interfere,  by  their  own  power,  to 
arrest  its  course  and  operation. 

If,  sir,  the  people  in  these  respects  had 
done  otherwise  than  they  have  done,  their 
Constitution  could  neither  have  been  preserved, 
nor  would  it  have  been  worth  preserving. 
And  if  its  plain  provisions  shall  now  be  disre 
garded,  and  these  new  doctrines  interpolated 
in  it,  it  will  become  as  feeble  and  helpless  a 
being  as  its  enemies,  whether  early  or  more  re 
cent,  could  possibly  desire.  It  will  exist  in  every 
state  but  as  a  poor  dependent  on  state  per 
mission.  It  must  borrow  leave  to  be;  and  will 
be  no  longer  than  state  pleasure,  or  state  dis 
cretion,  sees  fit  to  grant  the  indulgence,  and  to 
prolong  its  poor  existence. 

But,  sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are 
hopes  also.  The  people  have  preserved  this, 
their  own  chosen  Constitution,  for  forty  years, 
and  have  seen  their  happiness,  prosperity,  and 
renown  grow  with  its  growth,  and  strengthen 
with  its  strength.  They  are  now,  generally, 
strongly  attached  to  it.  Overthrown  by  direct 
assault,  it  cannot  be  evaded,  undermined,  nulli 
fied,  it  will  not  be ;  if  we  and  those  who  shall 
225 


Jftemorafile  American 


succeed  us  here  as  agents  and  representatives 
of  the  people  shall  conscientiously  and  vigi 
lantly  discharge  the  two  great  branches  of 
our  public  trust,  faithfully  to  preserve,  and 
wisely  to  administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons 
of  my  dissent  to  the  doctrines  which  have  been 
advanced  and  maintained.  I  am  conscious  of 
having  detained  you  and  the  Senate  much  too 
long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate  with  no 
previous  deliberation,  such  as  is  suited  to  the 
discussion  of  so  grave  and  important  a  subject. 
But  it  is  a  subject  of  which  my  heart  is  full,  and 
I  have  not  been  willing  to  suppress  the  utter 
ance  of  its  spontaneous  sentiments.  I  cannot 
even  now  persuade  myself  to  relinquish  it  with 
out  expressing  once  more  my  deep  conviction, 
that,  since  it  respects  nothing  less  than  the 
union  of  the  states,  it  is  of  most  vital  and 
essential  importance  to  the  public  happiness. 
I  profess,  sir,  in  my  career  hitherto,  to  have 
kept  steadily  in  view  the  prosperity  and  honor 
of  the  whole  country,  and  the  preservation 
of  our  Federal  Union.  It  is  to  that  Union 
we  owe  our  safety  at  home,  and  our  consid 
eration  and  dignity  abroad.  It  is  to  that 
Union  that  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  whatever 
makes  us  most  proud  of  our  country.  That 
Union  we  reached  only  by  the  discipline  of 
our  virtues  in  the  severe  school  of  adversity. 
It  had  its  origin  in  the  necessities  of  disor 
dered  finance,  prostrate  commerce,  and  ruined 
226 


SDaniel 


credit.  Under  its  benign  influences,  these 
great  interests  immediately  awoke,  as  from  the 
dead,  and  sprang  forth  with  newness  of  life. 
Every  year  of  its  duration  has  teemed  with 
fresh  proofs  of  its  utility  and  its  blessings; 
and  although  our  territories  have  stretched 
out  wider  and  wider,  and  our  population  spread 
farther  and  farther,  they  have  not  outrun  its 
protection  or  its  benefits.  It  has  been  to  us 
all  a  copious  fountain  of  national,  social,  and 
personal  happiness. 

I  have  not  allowed  myself,  sir,  to  look  be 
yond  the  Union,  to  see  what  might  lie  hidden 
in  the  dark  recess  behind.  I  have  not  coolly 
weighed  the  chances  of  preserving  liberty  when 
the  bonds  that  unite  us  together  shall  be  broken 
asunder.  I  have  not  accustomed  myself  to 
hang  over  the  precipice  of  disunion,  to  see 
whether,  with  my  short  sight,  I  can  fathom 
the  depth  of  the  abyss  below;  nor  could  I 
regard  him  as  a  safe  counselor  in  the  affairs 
of  this  government,  whose  thoughts  should 
be  mainly  bent  on  considering,  not  how  the 
Union  may  be  best  preserved,  but  how  toler 
able  might  be  the  condition  of  the  people  when 
it  should  be  broken  up  and  destroyed.  While 
the  Union  lasts,  we  have  high,  exciting,  grati 
fying  prospects  spread  out  before  us,  for  us 
and  our  children.  Beyond  that  I  seek  not  to 
penetrate  the  veil.  God  grant  that,  in  my  day 
at  least,  that  curtain  may  not  rise !  God  grant 
that  on  my  vision  never  may  be  opened  what 
227 


American 


lies  behind  !  When  my  eyes  shall  be  turned 
to  behold  for  the  last  time  the  sun  in  heaven, 
may  I  not  see  him  shining  on  the  broken 
and  dishonored  fragments  of  a  once  glorious 
union;  on  states  dissevered,  discordant,  bel 
ligerent;  on  a  land  rent  with  civil  feuds,  or 
drenched,  it  may  be,  in  fraternal  blood  !  Let 
their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance  rather 
behold  the  gorgeous  ensign  of  the  republic, 
now  known  and  honored  throughout  the  earth, 
still  full  high  advanced,  its  arms  and  trophies 
streaming  in  original  luster,  not  a  stripe  erased 
or  polluted,  nor  a  single  star  obscured,  bear 
ing  for  its  motto  no  such  miserable  interrog 
atory  as  "What  is  all  this  worth?  "  nor  those 
other  words  of  delusion  and  folly,  "  Liberty 
first  and  Union  afterwards";  but  everywhere, 
spread  all  over  in  characters  of  living  light, 
blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they  float 
over  the  sea  and  over  the  land,  and  in  every 
wind  under  the  whole  heavens,  that  other 
sentiment,  dear  to  every  true  American  heart, 
—  Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever,  one 
and  inseparable. 


228 


Notes 


Jl-Joteg 


Page  73. —  GEORGE  WASHINGTON. 

A  few  days  before  the  appearance  of  this  highly 
interesting  document  in  print,  I  received  a  message 
from  the  President,  by  his  private  secretary,  Colonel 
Lear,  signifying  his  desire  to  see  me.  I  waited  on 
him  at  the  appointed  time,  and  found  him  sitting 
alone  in  the  drawing-room.  He  received  me  very 
kindly,  and  after  paying  my  respects  to  him,  desired 
me  to  take  a  seat  near  him;  then  addressing  himself 
to  me,  said  that  he  had  for  some  time  contemplated 
withdrawing  from  public  life,  and  had  at  length 
concluded  to  do  so  at  the  end  of  the  [then]  present 
term;  that  he  had  some  thoughts  and  reflections 
on  the  occasion,  which  he  deemed  proper  to  com 
municate  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
which  he  wished  to  appear  in  the  Daily  Advertiser^ 
of  which  I  was  proprietor  and  editor.  He  paused, 
and  I  took  occasion  to  thank  him  for  having  select 
ed  that  paper  as  the  channel  of  communication  to 
the  public,  especially  as  I  viewed  this  choice  as  an 
evidence  of  his  approbation  of  the  principles  and 
manner  in  which  the  work  was  conducted.  He  si 
lently  assented,  and  asked  me  when  I  could  make 
the  publication.  I  answered  that  the  time  should  be 
made  perfectly  convenient  to  himself,  and  the  fol 
lowing  Monday  was  fixed  on;  he  then  said  that  his 
secretary  would  deliver  me  the  copy  on  the  next 
morning  [Friday],  and  I  withdrew.  After  the  proof 
sheet  had  been  carefully  compared  with  the  copy 
and  corrected  by  myself,  I  carried  two  different  re 
vises  to  be  examined  by  the  President,  who  made 
but  few  alterations  from  the  original,  except  in  the 
punctuation,  in  which  he  was  very  minute.  The 
publication  of  the  address  bearing  the  same  date 
with  the  paper,  September  19,  1796,  being  com 
pleted,  I  waited  on  the  President  with  the  original, 
231 


and  in  presenting  it  to  him,  expressed  how  much 
I  should  be  gratified  by  being  permitted  to  retain 
it ;  upon  which,  in  the  most  obliging  manner,  he 
handed  it  back  to  me,  saying  that  if  I  wished  for  it, 
I  might  keep  it;  and  I  took  my  leave.  —  Claypoolc's 
Statement. 

The  address  has  been  printed  from  the  original 
MS.  by  James  Lenox  (1850),  and  I  have  followed 
that  imprint.  It  was  from  the  newspaper  that  a 
secretary  transcribed  it  into  the  President's  letter- 
book,  and  Sparks  also  followed  the  newspaper  ver 
sion.  The  original  MS.  is  in  the  Lenox  Library, 
New  York.  The  Hamilton  drafts  are  in  the  De 
partment  of  State,  Washington.  Horace  Binney 
made  a  full  "Inquiry  into  the  Formation  of  Wash 
ington' s  Farewell  Address  "  (1859).  No  other  politi 
cal  paper  by  an  American  has  been  reprinted  so 
many  times,  and  the  address  has  become  a  classic. — 
Writings  of  George  Washington,  collected  and  edited 
by  W.C.Ford,  vol.  13,  pp.  277-279. 

Adams  reports  that,  when  the  address  was  read 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  there  were  tears 
in  the  eyes  of  nearly  all  present,  with  the  exception 
of  Washington  himself. 

Pagtji.—JoHN  RANDOLPH. 

Whatever  doubt  may  exist  as  to  whether  Mr. 
Randolph  was  a  great  man,  a  consistent  statesman, 
a  profound  thinker,  a  logical  debater,  there  can  be 
none  as  to  his  being  a  great  orator. — BOULDIN: 
Some  Reminiscences  of  John  Randolph,  p.  232. 

Mr.  Randolph  was  an  orator  proper.  He  pos 
sessed  the  faculty  of  producing  an  instantaneous 
and  powerful  effect  upon  his  auditors;  and  his 
speeches  lose  half  their  charm  when  they  appear  in 
print. — BOULDIN,  p.  234. 

This  speech  is  not  a   complete    evidence  of  his 

oratorical    powers.     There  we   read    the   strategic 

plans  of  the  author;  are  enabled  to  conceive  of  his 

wonderful  facility  in  gathering  materials  for  crush- 

232 


ing  the  feelings  of  his  adversaries;  behold  the  dread 
ful  weapons  he  employed;  but  the  action  is  wanting. 
We  cannot  witness  the  running  through  with  the 
long  bony  finger,  the  rage  of  his  eyes,  which  flashed 
from  side  to  side,  nor  the  awful  contractions  of  the 
muscles  of  his  face.  We  cannot  tell  how  he  bore 
himself  upon  the  field  of  battle,  when  the  cry  was 
"Delenda  est  Carthago,"  nor  how  the  victims  of 
his  displeasure  writhed  and  agonized  with  pain. — 
BOULDIN.  p.  236. 

Page  67. — HENRY  CLAY. 

The  public  feeling  ot  wrath  and  indignation  steadily 
rose  toward  France,  and  still  more  toward  Eng 
land.  In  the  new  Congress,  which  met  in  De 
cember,  1811,  Henry  Clay  of  Kentucky  was  chosen 
Speaker  of  the  House;  he  organized  it  with  a  view 
to  war,  and  made  young  John  C.  Calhoun  of  South 
Carolina  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs.  The  West  had  no  patience  with  the  tim 
idity  of  the  shipowners,  for  to  the  frontiersman 
nothing  seemed  easier  than  to  conquer  Canada, 
and,  as  Clay  said,  "  negotiate  the  terms  of  a  peace 
at  Quebec  or  Halifax."  The  country  was  then  pros 
perous  ;  manufactures  were  springing  up,  and  nearly 
$200,000,000  worth  of  goods  were  made  in  the  country 
in  a  single  year.  But  Congress  did  not  consider  that 
the  national  revenues  were  falling  off;  that  the  army 
numbered  only  7,000  men;  and  that  there  were  no 
good  roads  to  the  Canadian  frontier. 

Even  President  Madison  could  not  stand  the  pres 
sure  for  war,  and  war  was  formally  declared  against 
Great  Britain  June  18,  1812,  though  it  was  pointed 
out  in  Congress  that  we  ought  to  fight  France  also. 
The  official  reasons  for  the  war  were  as  follows:  (l) 
the  insolence  of  the  British  cruisers  on  the  coast; 
(2)  the  capture  of  over  900  American  vessels  since 
I8o3;  (3)  blockades  and  other  unrighteous  practices 
under  the  British  Orders  in  Council;  (4)  the  stirring 
up  of  Indian  hostilities;  (5)  impressment.  An  apol- 

233 


ogy  had  been  made  for  the  Chesapeake  affair;  at  the 
last  moment  the  British  partly  withdrew  the  offen 
sive  Orders;  and  we  now  know  that  it  was  an  error 
to  suppose  that  the  British  instigated  the  Indian 
wars.  Nevertheless,  two  substantial  grievances  re 
mained:  the  capture  of  our  merchantmen;  and  the 
impressment  of  about  4,000  seamen,  of  whom  many 
were  still  prisoners  on  British  cruisers.  —  HART: 
Essentials  in  American  History,  pp.  279,  280. 

Mr.  Clay's  chief  attention  was  directed  to  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  war.  .  .  .  If  we  consider  the  position  of 
the  country  and  the  position  of  Mr.  Clay  himself,  it 
can  hardly  be  denied  that  he  displayed  on  this  occa 
sion  the  greatest  vigor  of  his  character.  He  had 
two  single  aims,  one  to  silence  the  opposition,  and 
the  other  to  reanimate  the  country  for  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war  to  an  honorable  peace. 
Canada  was  the  vulnerable  point  of  the  enemy,  and 
Canada  must  be  taken  —  though  it  never  was  taken. 
With  the  exception  of  the  defense  of  New  Orleans, 
by  General  Jackson,  on  the  8th  of  January,  1815, 
our  naval  victories  on  the  lakes  and  on  the  ocean 
were  the  most  brilliant  achievements  of  the  war. — 
Works  of  Henry  Clay ,  edited  by  Calvin  Cotton,  vol.  6, 
P.  53- 
Page  107 .—  DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

The  third  attempt  to  form  an  organic  union  was 
now  successfully  carried  out.  The  irregular  author 
ity  of  the  Continental  Congress  had  been  replaced 
by  the  legal  but  inefficient  Confederation;  to  this 
was  now  to  succeed  an  organized  government,  com 
plete  in  all  its  departments,  and  well  endowed  with 
powers.  How  had  this  Constitution  been  adopted? 
What  was  the  authority  which  had  taken  upon  itself 
to  diminish  the  powers  of  the  states,  and  to  disre 
gard  the  clauses  which  required  unanimous  consent 
to  amendments?  Was  the  new  Constitution  an 
agreement  between  eleven  states,  or  was  it  an  instru 
ment  of  government  for  the  whole  people?  Upon 

234 


jfeoteg 

this  question  depends  the  whole  discussion  about 
the  nature  of  the  Union  and  the  right  of  secession. 

The  first  theory  is,  that  the  Constitution  was  a 
compact  made  between  sovereign  states.  Thus 
Hayne,  in  1830,  declared  that  "  before  the  Constitu 
tion  each  state  was  an  independent  sovereignty,  pos 
sessing  all  the  rights  and  powers  appertaining  to 
independent  nations. .  .  .  After  the  Constitution  was 
formed,  they  remained  equally  sovereign  and  inde 
pendent  as  to  all  powers  not  expressly  delegated  to 
the  federal  government.  .  .  .  The  true  nature  of  the 
federal  Constitution,  therefore,  is  ...  a  compact 
to  which  the  states  are  parties.  The  importance 
of  the  word  "compact"  is  that  it  means  an  agree 
ment  which  loses  its  force  when  any  one  of  the 
parties  ceases  to  observe  it ;  a  compact  is  little  more 
than  a  treaty.  Those  who  framed  the  Constitution 
appeared  to  consider  it  no  compact;  for  on  May  30, 
1787,  they  voted  that  "no  treaty  or  treaties  among 
the  whole  or  part  of  the  states,  as  separate  sover 
eignties,  would  be  sufficient."  In  fact,  the  reason 
for  the  violent  opposition  to  the  ratification  of  the 
Constitution  was  that  when  once  ratified  the  states 
could  not  withdraw  from  it. 

Another  view  is  presented  by  Webster  in  his  reply 
to  Hayne:  "It  is,  sir,  the  people's  Constitution,  the 
people's  government,  made  for  the  people,  made  by 
the  people,  and  answerable  to  the  people.  The  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States  have  declared  that  this 
Constitution  shall  be  the  supreme  law."  It  is  plain 
that  the  Constitution  does  not  rest  simply  upon  the 
consent  of  the  majority  of  the  nation.  No  popular 
vote  was  taken  or  thought  of;  each  act  of  ratification 
set  forth  that  it  proceeded  from  a  convention  of  the 
people  of  a  state. 

The  real  nature  of  the  new  Constitution  appears 
in  the  light  of  the  previous  history  of  the  country. 
The  Articles  of  Confederation  had  been  a  compact. 
One  of  the  principal  reasons  why  the  Confederation 
was  weak  was  that  there  was  no  way  of  compelling 

235 


the  states  to  perform  their  duties.  The  new  Con 
stitution  was  meant  to  be  stronger  and  more  perma 
nent.  The  Constitution  was,  then,  not  a  compact, 
but  an  instrument  of  government  similar  in  its  origin 
to  the  constitutions  of  the  states.  The  difference 
was  that,  by  general  agreement,  it  was  not  to  take 
effect  until  it  was  shown  that  in  at  least  nine  states 
the  people  were  willing  to  live  under  it.  Whatever 
the  defects  of  the  Confederation,  however  humiliat 
ing  its  weakness  to  our  national  pride,  it  had  per 
formed  an  indispensable  service :  it  had  educated  the 
American  people  to  the  point  where  they  were  will 
ing  to  accept  a  permanent  federal  union.  As  the 
"  Federalist  "  put  it,  "A  nation  without  a  national 
government  is  an  awful  spectacle." —  HART  :  Forma 
tion  of  the  Union,  1750-1829,  pp.  133-135. 

"  This  resolution  was,  in  itself,  but  a  simple  pro 
posed  inquiry  into  the  expediency  of  a  temporary 
suspension  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  and 
as  such  inquiry  presented  but  a  narrow  field  of  dis 
cussion  and  but  transient  topics  of  debate.  But  it 
was  soon  made  to  take  another  turn,  and  to  develop 
a  topic  of  great  and  abiding  interest, —  the  doc 
trine  of  nullification !  and  its  sequence, —  the  dissolu 
tion  of  the  Union  at  the  will  of  any  one  state.  Mr. 
Webster  and  Mr.  Hayne  (with  whom  it  began)  were 
the  prominent  speakers  on  this  new  and  startling 
topic ;  and  what  was  said  upon  it  by  themselves  and 
others  is  all  that  retains  a  surviving  interest  at  this 
day,  or  gave  celebrity  to  the  debate  at  the  time,  and 
is  the  only  part  of  it  which  comes  within  the  scope 
of  this  abridgment.  Mr.  Hayne,  in  opposing  Mr. 
Foot's  resolution,  took  occasion  to  go  into  the  con 
sideration  of  the  future  disposition  of  the  public 
lands,  suggesting  their  transfer  on  easy  terms  to  the 
new  states  in  which  they  lie,  and  for  the  benefit  of 
settlers  and  cultivators,  and  deprecating  their  sale 
for  money,  either  to  accumulate  in  the  treasury,  or 
to  be  divided  among  the  states,  as  leading  to  cor 
ruption  and  consolidation.  Mr.  Webster,  in  reply, 
236 


took  up  this  point  in  Mr.  Hayne's  speech,  and  ar 
gued  that  consolidation  was  not  the  danger  which 
threatened  these  states,  but  the  contrary  —  dis 
union! —  and  referred  to  language  and  proceedings 
in  South  Carolina,  uncivic  in  their  import,  and 
tending  to  this  dire  extremity.  With  equal  deco 
rum  and  justice,  (for  there  was  nothing  to  impli 
cate  Mr.  Hayne  in  any  of  this  language  or  conduct), 
Mr.  Webster  formally  exonerated  him  from  all 
complicity  in  the  supposed  design.  But  he  impli 
cated  others,  and  that  quite  distinctly, —  friends  of 
Mr.  Hayne, — some  of  whom  were  absent,  and  uncon 
scious  of  what  was  said;  and  one  of  whom  was  pres 
ent,  and  bound  to  hear  all  that  was  said,  and  to  be 
silent, —  his  position  forbidding  him  to  engage  in 
senatorial  discussion  (Mr.  Calhoun,  Vice-President 
of  the  United  States,  and  President  of  the  Senate). 
The  generous  spirit  of  Mr.  Hayne  came  to  the 
defense  of  friends  who  could  not  speak  for  them 
selves.  He  spoke  for  them;  and  that  brought  on 
the  great  debate  on  nullification  and  disunion, — 
of  such  absorbing  interest  at  the  time,  and  to  which 
subsequent  events  have  lent  a  great  additional  em 
phasis. —  Abridgment  of  the  Debates  of  Congress^  from 
1789  to  1856,  vol.  10,  pp.  418,  419. 


237 


TTSF 


I 


